IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 25TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 6TH PHALGUNA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 540 of 2011() ------------------------------------ MC.39/2010 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, CHENGANNUR .................... (CR.NO.419/2010 OF HARIPPAD POLICE STATION,ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT) ........ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- SHYAM, S/O.SARANGADHARAN, AMBITHARAYIL, THAMALLACKAL (SOUTH MURI), KUMARAPURAM VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.R.ARUN KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HARIPPAD POLICE STATIO, HARIPPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. M.K.PUSHPALATHA THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss THOMAS P. JOSEPH, J. -------------------------------------- Crl.M.C. No.540 of 2011 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of February, 2011. ORDER Petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.39 of 2010 of the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chengannur initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Petitioner was served with Annexure-14, order dated 02.07.2010 under Section 111 of the Code directing him to show cause why he shall not execute a bond. That order is under challenge. Learned counsel submitted that as is usual practice in that court, it is likely that on petitioner appearing before the Sub Divisional Magistrate he will be asked to execute a bond and be detained in custody until execution of the bond. Learned counsel submitted that C.C.No.56 of 2009 of the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Harippad in which petitioner is an accused is settled between the parties and that another case pending against petitioner is only Crime No.406 of 2010 of Harippad Police Station which as per the information received by the learned counsel is in the course of investigation. Learned counsel submitted that this is a case of dispute between petitioner and his father involving properties and there were some civil dispute between the Crl.MC No.540/2011 2 parties and in the circumstances there was no necessity for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate action under Section 107 of the Code based on Crime No.419 of 2010. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. 2. What is now challenged is an order under Section 111 of the Code requiring petitioner to show cause why he shall not be asked to execute a bond. Obviously when petitioner appears before the Sub Divisional Magistrate and shows cause, the latter has to follow the procedure prescribed in Chapter VIII of the Code. Under Section 116(3) of the Code a bond can be directed to be executed only after commencement of the enquiry and before its completion and only if the Sub Divisional Magistrate considers that immediate measures are necessary to prevent breach of peace, disturbance of public tranquility or the commission of any offence or for public safety, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has to scrupulously follow the procedure before a person could be directed to execute a bond bearing in mind that execution of bond involves serious consequences touching upon character of the person concerned. There is no reason why I should think that the Sub Divisional Magistrate will not take into account the seriousness of the matter in deciding whether petitioner is to execute a bond. 3. So far as apprehension of petitioner that he may be detained in custody is concerned, I direct that if at all Sub Divisional Magistrate directs Crl.MC No.540/2011 3 petitioner to execute bond as provided under law, petitioner shall be granted sufficient time for that purpose so that in the meantime, it is open to the petitioner to challenge that order before the appropriate court. With the above direction, this petition is closed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, Judge. cks