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. 762 of 2011() ------------------------ MC.46/2011 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, FORT KOCHI. .................... PETITIONER(S): COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------------- TITUS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O.JOSEPH, PAINEDATH VEETTIL, GOTHURUTH, CHENDAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI.A.X.VARGHESE, SRI.A.V.JOJO. RESPONDENT(S): COMPLAINANTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM - 680 031. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VADAKKEKARA POLICE STATION - 683 513. 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: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.762 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of March, 2011. ORDER This petition is challenging Annexure-A3, notice dated February 4, 2011 in M.C.No.46 of 2011 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi issued under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”) directing petitioner to appear in person before that authority on 22.02.2011 at 11 a.m. and show cause why he shall not be required to enter into a bond for `.15,000/- and furnish security by a bond with two sureties for the like sum each that he shall keep peace for a term of one year. Learned counsel submitted that in a notice under Section 111 of the Code, particulars based on which such notice is issued sufficient to give opportunity for the petitioner to make his defence must be contained. Such details are absent in the present case. Reliance is placed on the decisions in Mukthar v. Sub Inspector of Police [2002 (1) KLT S.N. 15 (at Page 15)], orders dated 06.11.2009 and 09.04.2010 in Crl.M.C. Nos.3132 of 2009 and 1172 of 2010 and the decision of the High Court of Orissa in Rama Chandra Jena and others v. Murahdhar – Onjha and others (1988 Cri.L.J. 218). Learned counsel contended that in the light of the above decisions Annexure-A3, notice cannot stand and is liable to be quashed. I have heard learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. In the decisions referred to above, it is stated that the notice must Crl.MC No.762/2011 2 mention grounds for belief of the Sub Divisional Magistrate to direct the person concerned to execute the bond. In Annexure-A3, notice it is stated that from the report dated 15.10.2010 in Crime No. 716 of 2010 of the Sub Inspector of Vadakkekara, information is received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate that petitioner is committing acts leading to breach of peace within the jurisdiction of the court which are likely to endanger public tranquility and that the Sub Inspector of Police reported that petitioner is still continuing his criminal activities and there is no other source to prevent him from his criminal activities other than proceeding under Section 107 of the Code. It is also stated that the Sub Inspector has reported that petitioner is involved in Crime No.932 of 2009 registered for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, “the IPC”) and Crime No.679 of 2010 for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 354 and 294 of the Code. The Sub Divisional Magistrate states that from the above information and the connected records he is satisfied that there is a situation likely to result in breach of peace existing in the locality and in the circumstances, proceeding under Section 107 of the Code is required and accordingly notice is issued to petitioner under Section 111 of the Code. In the decisions relied on by learned counsel such details were wanting. It is relevant to note that in Rama Chandra Jena and others v. Murahdhar – Onjha and others (supra) on the petition submitted learned Magistrate made an endorsement that he perused the petition and affidavit and that he is Crl.MC No.762/2011 3 satisfied that there is apprehension of breach of peace and hence proceeding under Section 107 of the Code is started against the person concerned. That is not the situation so far as Annexure-A3, notice is concerned. 3. I must also bear in mind that as per Annexure-A3, notice petitioner is directed only to show cause why he shall not be asked to execute a bond. It is within the right of petitioner to show cause why he shall not executed a bond. 4. It is also contended by learned counsel that in view of Sub-clause (a) of proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 116 of the Code except when proceedings are initiated under Sections 108, 109 and 110 of the Code the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot direct execution of a bond for maintaining a good behaviour. I am not going into that question in this proceeding. It is open to the petitioner to urge that contention before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. With the above direction this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks