IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR TUESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2010 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1932 Crl.MC.No. 590 of 2010 --------------------------------- [MC.NO.128/2009 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, MUVATTUPUZHA] .................... PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------------------- SAJU, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 38 YEARS, THURUTHIKUNNEL HOUSE, VADAYAMPADI P.O., AIKKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.N.N.ELAYATH. RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT: ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE S.I.OF POLICE, PUTHENCRUZ POLICE STATION. R1 & R2 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR MR. S.U. NAZAR. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J. -------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.590 of 2010 -------------------------- ORDER Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash Annexure-A4 order and the entire proceedings in M.C.No.128/2008 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha. By Annexure-A5 order dated 29.12.2008, Sub Divisional Magistrate directed petitioner to appear on 16.1.2009 and to show cause why he shall not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.20,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like sum, as provided under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure for keeping peace in the locality for a period of one year. 2. Admittedly, petitioner appeared and executed a bond. He did not challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, Annexure-A4 order was passed on 19.1.2010 directing the petitioner to deposit the bond amount of Rs.20,000/- on the ground that from credible information received, Sub Divisional Magistrate is satisfied that in violation of the conditions CRMC 590/10 2 stipulated in the bond, petitioner involved in Crime No.18/2010 of Puthencruz Police Station. This petition is filed to quash Annexure-A4 order contending that it was passed without notice to the petitioner and without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to show that there was no violation of the conditions of the bond. Petitioner would contend that proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal procedure was initiated earlier in M.C.No.17/2001 and by Annexure-A3 order, it was dropped on 16.9.2004 and it was because of the enmity of the Circle Inspector of Police and Sub Inspector of Police, further proceedings were initiated and crime was also registered. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor were heard. 4. Learned Public Prosecutor made available the case diary in Crime No.18/2010 of Puthencruz Police Station. 5. Though the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Proceedings earlier was dropped on 16.9.2004, by Annexure-A3 order on satisfying that petitioner is indulging in acts which are likely to CRMC 590/10 3 cause breach of peace and public tranquility, he was directed to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 16.1.2009 and show cause why he shall not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.20,000/-. Petitioner, appeared and instead of showing cause, executed a bond. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to challenge the proceedings initiated under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure in M.C.No.128/2008. 6. But, there is force in the submission that Annexure-A4 order is illegal, as it was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to show that there was no violation of the conditions of the bond. The case diary made available by the learned Public Prosecutor shows that a complaint was filed against the petitioner and another contending that the complainant was obstructed while proceeding in a jeep and he was scolded and threatened. But, before directing the petitioner to pay the penalty as stipulated in the bond, Sub Divisional Magistrate should have issued a notice to the petitioner and should have granted an opportunity to be heard. Annexure-A4 order shows that no such notice was given or opportunity granted. CRMC 590/10 4 7. In such circumstances, Annexure-A4 order is quashed. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha is directed to hear the petitioner before deciding the allegation that he has violated the conditions of the bond. Petitioner is directed to appear before Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha on 5.5.2010 at 11 a.m. The Sub Divisional Magistrate shall grant an opportunity to the petitioner to show that there was no violation of the conditions of the bond and to pass orders after hearing the petitioner. If the Sub Divisional Magistrate has realised the amount, as provided under Annexure-A3 order, it is subject to the result of the final order to be passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Petition is disposed. 6th April, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge) tkv