IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH MONDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2011 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1739 of 2011() --------------------- CRIME NO. 1260/10 OF HOSDURG POLICE STATION, KASARAGOD .............. PETITIONER / ACCUSED : ------------------------------------- RASHID M., S/O.ABDUL KARIM, AGED 21 YEARS, SAMEERA MANZIL, KOVVALPALLI, KANHANGAD VILLAGE BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAMESH CHANDER SRI.ANEESH JOSEPH RESPONDENT / STATE : ---------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARAGOD R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAYASURYA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/06/2011, ALONG WITH CRMC NO. 1740/2011 & 1742/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== Crl. M.C. Nos.1739, 1740 & 1742 of 2011 ==================================== Dated this the 13th day of June, 2011 O R D E R The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasargod has initiated proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) against petitioners based on reports submitted by the Sub Inspector of Police, Hosdurg (separate crime reports are given by the Sub Inspector) as per Annexure-A1, order. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has directed petitioners to appear before him and show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bond as mentioned in the impugned orders. Grievance of petitioners is that contents of reports submitted by the Sub Inspector based on which Annexure-A1, order is passed are not given in the respective orders. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision in Henry Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala (2009 [4] KLT 495) where it is stated that the order directing a person to show cause why bond shall not be executed should contain contents of the reports based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate has entered the satisfaction to invoke power under Sec.107 of the Code. A reading of paragraph 7 of the decision would show that in that case the impugned order did not Crl. M.C. No.1739 of 2011 & connected cases -: 2 :- disclose contents of the report based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate expressed satisfaction to invoke the power under Sec.107 of the Code requiring petitioner to appear and show cause why he shall not execute a bond. The said order did not say what was the allegation raised in the complaint against the petitioner. 2. In these cases it is revealed from the impugned orders that petitioners are involved in certain cases and offences attributed to the petitioners are mentioned in the impugned orders. It is also stated that the Sub Inspector concerned has reported that petitioners are continuing unlawful acts of violence and thereby creating serious disturbance and public tranquility in the locality and such unlawful acts cannot be prevented otherwise by initiating action under Sec.107 of the Code. That is the contents of the reports the Sub Inspector has given. It is not as if petitioners are directed to execute bond forthwith; instead they are asked to show cause why they shall not be ordered to execute bond. The preliminary order is issued under Sec.111 of the Code and on petitioners showing cause the Sub Divisional Magistrate has to conduct enquiry under Sec.116 of the Code. Sub Divisional Magistrate could direct execution of bond only after commencement of enquiry and before its completion as Crl. M.C. No.1739 of 2011 & connected cases -: 3 :- provided under Sec.116(3) of the Code. As I stated it is not as if petitioners were directed to execute bond forthwith. Petitioners have the occasion to show cause against execution of bond. In the circumstances I do not find reason to interfere with the impugned orders. 3. If the date for appearance of petitioners before the Sub Divisional Magistrate has expired and it is not extended by him, it is open to him to pass fresh orders as contemplated under law and if circumstances warranted such action. With the above observation these Criminal Miscellaneous Cases are closed. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv