IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 3079 of 2010() ------------------------ MC.38/2010 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MANANTHAVADY CRIME NO. 233/2010 OF AMBALAWAYAL POLICE STATION, WAYANAD ................. PETITIONERS / COUNTER PETITIONERS 1 TO 10 : ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MOHANDAS, S/O. RAMUNNI, EDAKKAL, AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 2. RAMESH, S/O. RAMAN, EZHAVARAKULAMBIL, NEERCHAL, AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 3. VINOD, S/O. KRISHNAN KUTTY, EZHAVARAKULAMBIL, NEERCHAL AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 4. PAREETH,S/O. MARAKKAR,CHERADIYIL HOUSE, NARIKKUNDU, AMBALAWAYAL,WAYANAD DISTRICT. 5. KABEER, S/O. KUNJUMUHAMMED POOZHIVALAPPIL HOUSE, MOOPAINAD, MEPPADI, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 6. ASHRAF, S/O. KUNHAPPA, ARAKKAL HOUSE, NARIKKUNDU, AMBALAWAYAL WAYANAD DISTRICT. 7. N.K.SALEEM, S/O. ABOOBACKER, NELLIKODE HOUSE, ANDOOR, THOMATTUCHAL WAYANAD DISTRICT. 8. P.K.SUNNY, S/O. JOSEPH, VALIYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, EDAKKAL,AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 9. KUNHAPPA, S/O. ABOOBACKER, NADUVILATHETHIL HOUSE, NEERCHAL, AMBALAWAYAL, WAYANAD DISTRICT. 10. RAVI, S/O. APPUNNI, BHAYANKARAN HOUSE, NELLARACHAL, AMBALAWAYA, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KRISHNA PRASAD. S ...2/- Crl.MC.No. 3079 of 2010() -2- RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT -------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DISTRICT. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A. SALIM THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------- Crl.M.C No.3079 of 2010 -------------------------- Dated this the 12th October, 2010 O R D E R Petitioners are the counter petitioners in M.C No.38/2010 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mananthavady initiated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. By Annexure A1 preliminary order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C r/w 107 of Cr.P.C, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mananthavadi directed the petitioners to appear in person and show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two Gazetted Officers as solvent sureties for the like sum for a period of one year for keeping peace, based on the information received that Village Officer, Ambalavayal along with the Village Assistant had gone to the property in Sy. No.298/1A-1A-1A where quarrying work is being done. Then petitioners who are loading workers of the quarry attacked them and caused hurt. The Village officer and the Village Assistant were admitted in Government Hospital, Ambalavayal. The case is that they were attacked when the illegal temporary construction was sought to be prevented and if action is Crl.M.C No.3079 of 2010 2 not taken under Section 107 of Cr.P.C it is likely that it would affect public tranquility and peace. By Annexure-A2 order dated 1.7.2010, after hearing the objections raised by the petitioners, they were directed to execute an interim bond with the alteration that only one of the sureties need be a Gazetted Officer. By Annexure-A3 order, bail bonds executed were accepted. The case was posted for enquiry and evidence. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to quash the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C contending that petitioners are ordinary workers and they were not involved in any crime and the Sub Divisional Magistrate should not have taken proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C in the light of the decision of this Court in Moidu Vs. State of Kerala [1982 KLT 578]. 2. Learned counsel submitted that because of stringent conditions to execute the bond with two solvent Gazetted Officers as sureties petitioners were to be custody for three days before they were released and one of the conditions is that petitioners shall appear and sign before Crl.M.C No.3079 of 2010 3 the Village Officer, Ambalavayal, when the case is that petitioners caused hurt to the very same Village Officer and in such circumstances, the said condition was illegal. Learned counsel also submitted that if petitioners are made to stand for trial before the same Sub Divisional Magistrate, they will not get justice. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the records of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and submitted on the facts and circumstances of the case, it was necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. 4. On hearing the learned counsel and going through the records made available by the Public Prosecutor, I do not find it just or proper for this Court to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction to quash the proceedings at this state. The allegation against the petitioners is that they had attacked the Village Officer and Village Assistant, who had gone to inspect the revenue property near the place where quarry work being carried out and finding constructions in the property, they directed to stop the work and took steps to take custody of the Crl.M.C No.3079 of 2010 4 materials, when evidently at the instigation of the owners of the quarry, petitioners attacked the Village Officer and Village Assistant. It is in such circumstances, the Sub Divisional Magistrate felt that it is necessary to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. On the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the proceedings initiated is to be quashed for the reason that petitioners were not involved in any case previously. If the Revenue Officials, who in exercise of their duty to prevent illegal quarry or trespass into the revenue property are to be attacked and inflicted injuries, it would definitely affect the public tranquility as well as peace. In such circumstances, I do not find it proper to quash the proceedings as sought for. Petitioners are entitled to raise all the contentions raised herein at the stage of enquiry under Section 116 of Cr.P.C. As pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the direction in Annexure-A3 order, to the petitioner to appear and sign before the Village Officer, is unnecessary when petitioners have already executed a bond as ordered by the Sub Crl.M.C No.3079 of 2010 5 Divisional Magistrate. In such circumstances, the condition in Annexure A3 order directing petitioners to appear and sign before the Village Officer, Ambalavayal on every Tuesday is quashed. If the petitioners have any grievance against the the Sub Divisional Magistrate trying the case, they are at liberty to seek transfer, in accordance with law. Petition is disposed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE ma