Amal Vijayan vs State Of Kerala
2022 Latest Caselaw 6376 Ker

Crl.M.C.No.5496/21                      1

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
           THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.
     FRIDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1944
                      CRL.MC NO. 5496 OF 2021
 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 87/2021 OF SUB DIVISIONAL
                      MAGISTRATE,MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

            AMAL VIJAYAN,
            AGED 31 YEARS,
            S/O.VIJAYAN, VALAMBASSERIL HOUSE, NELLAD P.O.,
            KUNNATHUNADE THALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT,
            PIN - 686 669.

            BY ADVS.
            K.S.ARUN KUMAR
            VIJAY SANKAR V.H.
            SRUTHY UNNIKRISHNAN



RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

            STATE OF KERALA,
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
            HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682 031.


      THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON   03.06.2022,     THE   COURT   ON   THE   SAME   DAY   PASSED   THE
FOLLOWING:
 Crl.M.C.No.5496/21                    2

                              ORDER

The petitioner has filed this Crl.M.C. challenging Annexure-

I order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate under Section

111 of Cr.P.C. As per the impugned order, the petitioner was

asked to furnish a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties

for keeping peace, under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner

contends that the aforesaid notice is illegal and he is involved

only in one case. It is pointed out that, as per Annexure-III, he

was already granted bail in the aforesaid case. This Crl.M.C. is

filed in such circumstances.

2. Heard both sides.

3. One of the crucial contentions raised by the petitioner

is that, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the learned Sub

Divisional Magistrate was on the basis of incomplete and

incorrect information provided by the police. It is also contended

that, the details of the materials on which the decision to initiate

the proceedings are not seen revealed from Annexure-I order.

4. However, the learned Public Prosecutor would oppose

the aforesaid application. It is pointed out that, the order passed

by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is only a show-cause notice and

it shall be open for the petitioner to appear before the learned

Sub Divisional Magistrate and submit objections to the same. In

such an event, enquiry under Section 116 Cr.P.C. will be

conducted. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted,

contends the learned Public Prosecutor. However, the fact that,

the petitioner is involved in only one case is confirmed by the

learned Public Prosecutor.

5. I have gone through the records. It is an admitted fact

that the petitioner was involved in only one case and he is

already released on bail by this Court as evidenced by Annexure-

III. Even though it is alleged in impugned order that, the

petitioner is causing disturbance to the peace and tranquility in

the locality by committing repeated illegal act, there are

absolutely no details mentioned in Annexure-I as to the acts

allegedly committed by him. Apart from crime No.957 of 2020,

in which the petitioner is already granted bail, no details of any

other offences are seen mentioned. In such circumstances, I find

some force in the contention put forward by the learned counsel

for the petitioner. In the facts of the case, the only conclusion

possible is that, the subjective satisfaction claimed to have been

arrived at by the Sub Divisional Magistrate while issuing

Annexure-I is not based on appropriate data and details

submitted by the police in this regard. In such circumstances,

the same cannot be treated as a case where, the Sub Divisional

Magistrate exercised his jurisdiction properly.

Therefore, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this

Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as I find that Annexure-I is a

clear abuse of process of court. In the result, this Crl.M.C. is

allowed and Annexure-I is hereby quashed. However, it is made

clear that this will not preclude the authorities concerned in

initiating the proceedings against the petitioner, if there are

materials substantiating the same.

Sd/-

ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

JUDGE

DG/4.6.22

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 5496/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure I CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2021 IN MC NO.87/2021 PENDING BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MUVATTUPUZHA.

Annexure II             TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME
                        NO.957/2020 OF KUNNATHUNADE POLICE
                        STATION.

Annexure III            TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 13/08/2020
                        IN B.A.4759/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.