IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 Crl.MC.No. 1888 of 2009 --------------------------------------- MC.19/2009 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KASARGOD .................... PETITIONERS: 1. IBRAHIM.C.A., (AGE 31/09 YEARS), S/O.ABDULLA, MANIYAMPARA, KASARAGOD TALUK. 2. FAKRUDDIN HAJEE (AGE 58/09 YEARS), S/O.KUNHAMMED HAJEE, PADALADUKA HOUSE, KUNDIKKANAM, NEERACHIL VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. 3. C.H.ASHRAF, (AGE 29/09 YEARS), S/O.ABDUL RAHMAN, BAPPALIPONAM HOUSE, MUGU VILLAGE, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON SMT.GOVINDU P.RENUKADEVI RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY S.I.OF POLICE, KASARAGOD, REP. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, KERALA HIGH COURT, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.S.U.NAZAR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.1888 of 2009 -------------------------- ORDER This petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A1 preliminary order passed under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, where under, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanhangad, getting satisfied on the report submitted by the Sub Inspector that petitioners are involved in Crime Nos.122/2008, 123/2008, 120/2008, 245/2008 and 244/2008 of Badiadka Police Station and are continuing their unlawful acts of violence and thereby creating serious disturbance to public tranquility in the locality and directed them to appear and show cause why they shall not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/- each with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to keep peace for a period of one year. This petition is filed contending that the Sub Divisional Magistrate was not justified in CRMC 1888/09 2 proceeding under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, as there is no likelihood of an imminent breach of peace or tranquility at the instance of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 3. Learned counsel argued that even though petitioners were allegedly involved in five cases, they are involved only in Crime No.122/2008, registered for the offences under Section 323, 294 (b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and therefore, learned Magistrate was not justified in proceeding against the petitioners under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor pointed out that even though Annexure-A1 order shows that petitioners are also involved in Crime No.123/2008, registered for the offences under Sections 323, 294 (b) and 506(i) read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No.120/2008, registered for the offence CRMC 1888/09 3 under Section 297 of Indian Penal Code, Crime No. 245/2008, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 323, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code and Crime No.244/2008, registered for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 324 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, it is not specifically contended that they are not involved in those cases. 5. In such circumstances, I find no justification for quashing the case as sought for. Petitioners are entitled to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and show cause why they shall not execute a bond as required under Annexure-A1. Petitioners are also entitled to raise all the contentions, including the defence that they are not involved in the cases as stated in Annexure-A1. Petition is disposed. 30th September, 2009 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv