IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 Crl.MC.No. 1800 of 2011() ----------------------------------- (MC 136/2011 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARGODE AT KANJANGAD) ......................... PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONERS ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. ISMAIL, S/O.MAHIN KUNHI, THAIVALAPPU, MAIPPADI. 2. MUJEEB, S/O.SEETHI, MAIPPADI, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE. 3. MOIDEEN, S/O.MAHINKUNHI, THAIVALAPPU, MAIPPADI. 4. M.S.ARSHAD, S/O.SEETHIKUNHI, MAIPPADI, SHIRIBAGILU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.T.G.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/STATE ------------------------------- 1. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KASARAGOD POLICE STATION.- 671 121 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGAD. 671 315 3. STATE REP; BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. V. MANU THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.MC.No. 1800 of 2011() ANNEXURE ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN MC 136/2011 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KANHANGD // TRUE COPY // PA TO JUDGE smt THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Crl.M.C. No.1800 of 2011 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dated this the 16th day of June 2011 O R D E R Petitioners, counter petitioners in M.C.No.136 of 2011 of the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad are aggrieved by Annexure-I preliminary order dated 10.5.2011 issued against them under Sec.111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) on the ground that the order does not contain details of information based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate passed the said order. Learned counsel contends that Annexure-I order is bad. It is also contended that question of execution of bond arises only after commencement of inquiry and before its completion. 2. So far as the first contention is concerned, it is seen that sufficient information is given in Annexure-I, order based on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate issued Crl.M.C. No.1800 of 2011 -: 2 :- preliminary order under Sec.111 of the Code. So far as the second contention is concerned Annexure-I order only directs petitioners to show cause why they should not executed the bond. Sec.111 of the Code deals with the manner of issuing the preliminary order. Under Sec.116(3), execution of bond is after commencement and before completion of the inquiry under Sec.116(1), if the Sub Divisional Magistrate is satisfied that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility etc. 3. It is open to the petitioners to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause against execution of bond as directed in Annexure-I. There is no reason for interference with Annexure-I order. Resultantly, this Crl.M.C. is closed with the observation made above. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. Jvt