IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2008 / 12TH POUSHA 1929 Crl.MC.No. 3747 of 2007() ------------------------- MC.25/2007 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KASARAGOD AT KANHANGADU .................... PETITIONER: ACCUSED -------------------------------------- 1. KAINHI @ ABDUL KHADER, S/O ABDHUL RAHMAN, KORTAMOGARU, ARIMALA, BADJE VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 2. MAJEED @ ABDUL MAJEED, S/O MONUMAJAL, ARIMALA HOSUE, BADJE VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 3. SIDDIQUE, S/O MUHAMMED KOLIYOOR, ANIMALA, BADJE VILLAGE, KASARGOD DISTRICT. 4. ALI, S/O MUHAMMED, BARUA MUHAMMED, ARIMALA, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 5. ANSAF, S/O ABDHU KHADER @ KAIPHI, KORTAMOGERU, ARIMALA, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 6. MUHAMMED @ MAMMAD, S/O MAMMUNHI, KORAMOGARU HOUSE, ARIMAL, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 7. ISMAIL, S/O MAMMALI, KORTAMOGARU(HOUSE), ARIMAL, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. Crl.MC.No. 3747 of 2007 -2-- 8. HANEEFA, S/O SHEID AHAMMED @ SHEIK ABBAS ARIMALA, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 9. BASHEER, S/O ABDULLA, ARIMALA, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 10. RAFEEQUE @ MUHAMMED RAFEEQUE, S/O MONU, MAJAL HOUSE, ARIMALA, BADAJE VILLAGE, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.K.P.HARISH RESPONDENTS: COMPLAINANT ----------------------------------------------------- STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.M.S.BREEZ THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = Crl.M.C.No. 3747 of 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2008 ORDER In this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the petitioners ten in number who were the counter petitioners in M.C.No.25/07 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kasargode, at Kanhangad, challenges Annexure AVII preliminary order dated 17.8.07 requiring the petitioners herein to appear before the learned Magistrate and to show cause why they should not be ordered under Section 107 read with 111 Cr.P.C to execute a bond for Rs.10,000/-( Rupees ten thousand only) with two solvent sureties each for the said amount and to keep peace for a period of one year.. 2. Assailing the said preliminary order, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners made the following submissions before me:- Except adverting to a report from the Sub Inspector of Police, Manjeswaram, counter signed by the Circle Inspector of Police, Kumbla and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kanhangad to the effect that the petitioners herein residing within the local Crl.M.C.No.3747 of 2007 2 limits of the jurisdiction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate were likely to cause breach of peace and were accused in four other crimes and the petitioners were continuing the unlawful acts of violence causing serious disturbance and threat of public tranquility in the locality, the Executive Magistrate has not conducted any enquiry under Sub section 1 of Section 116 Cr.P.C. The decision of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye and another v. Ved Muri and others (AIR 1971 SC 2481) and the decision of the Orissa High Court in Chandramani Nayak and others v. State of Orissa and others (1992 Cri.L.J.2188) show that no such direction can be given to the counter petitioners to execute a bond either temporary or permanent without conducting an enquiry and without satisfying that the contents of the report of the Police are true and genuine. 3. The above contention would have merited acceptance by this Court if instead of executing the bond, the petitioner had taken exception to the direction to execute the bond in Annexure A VII preliminary order. But the petitioners appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and executed the bond as required under Annexure A VII preliminary order. In the decision cited Crl.M.C.No.3747 of 2007 3 by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners therein were assailing the direction to execute bond. But here, the petitioners having executed bond without any demur cannot turn round and question the propriety of the procedure followed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. The only direction which is warranted in this case is to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate to complete the proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date of commencement as mandated by sub section 6 of Section 116 Cr.P.C. It shall be open to the petitioners to make all submissions available to them before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and press for an early termination of the proceedings. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj