IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 10TH MARCH 2011 / 19TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 686 of 2011() ----------------------------------- ( AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/12/2010 IN M.C.558/2010/C OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI) ------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- RAJEEV, AGED 28 YEARS, S/O.SHANMUGHAN, SAJEEV BHAVAN, NEAR TAHIKKADU JUNCTION, AMARABHAGAM DESOM, KOYILAKAD VILLAGE, NEDUMANGAD TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANT ------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM- 682 031. 2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM-682002. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. JAIBY PAUL THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/03/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sts THOMAS P JOSEPH, J. ---------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.686 of 2011 --------------------------------------- Dated this 10th day of March, 2011 ORDER Petitioner challenges Annexure-A2, notice dated December 29, 2010 in M.C.No.558 of 2010 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi. That notice was issued to the petitioner under Sec.111 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, "the Code”) on the strength of a report the police submitted to the SDM that proceeding under Sec.109 of the Code is required to be initiated against petitioner. Pursuant to that report, the SDM issued Annexure-A2, notice requiring petitioner to appear in person before the SDM on 11.01.2011 at about 11a.m and show cause why he shall not be required to enter into a bond for `.10,000/- and furnish security by a bond of two sureties for the like sum each to maintain good behaviour for a period of one year. According to learned counsel, there was no circumstance warranting issue of Annexure-A2, notice. It is submitted that pursuant to Annexure-A2, notice petitioner appeared before the SDM and showed cause but the SDM has not passed any order. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. Crl.M.C.No.686 of 2011 -: 2 :- 2. The challenge in this proceeding is to Annexure-A2, notice. I do not find reason to interfere with the notice directing petitioner to show cause why the action proposed therein should not be taken against the petitioner. If petitioner has shown cause, necessarily the SDM shall consider that and pass appropriate orders. If the order that may be passed by the SDM is adverse to the petitioner it is open to him to challenge that order. With the above observation this petition is closed. (THOMAS P JOSEPH, JUDGE) Sbna/-