Dilshan V.Bose vs State Of Kerala
2023 Latest Caselaw 10719 Ker

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                           PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
 THURSDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2023 / 27TH ASWINA, 1945
                   CRL.MC NO. 6192 OF 2021
       MC 548/2021 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN




PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

         DILSHAN V.BOSE
         AGED 32 YEARS
         S/O.BOSE VARGHESE, VECHUPADINJARETHIL VEEDU,
         MOOLEPPADAM BAGAM, THRIKKAKKARA NORTH VILLAGE,
         KALAMASSERY P.O., ERNAKULAM.
         BY ADVS.
         K.R.VINOD
         K.S.SREEREKHA
         JOHN TONY AKKARA
         JOSEPH N.A.
         PAUL P. MATHEW
         M.S.LETHA

RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

          STATE OF KERALA
          REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
          HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-682031.
OTHER PRESENT:

         SRI.M.P.PRASANTH, PP


    THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 19.10.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 CrlM.C..No.6192/2021

                                  2




                   P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J.
                    --------------------------------
                   Crl.M.C. No.6192 of 2021
             ----------------------------------------------
           Dated this the 19th day of October, 2023


                              ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash

Annexure-A1 order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate

Court, Fort Kochi, in M.C.No.548/2021. The above case is

initiated under Section 111 Cr.PC. It is the case of the

petitioner that Annexure A1 notice issued by the Sub

Divisional Magistrate does not contain the substances of the

information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for

arriving at the satisfaction contemplated under Section 107

Cr.PC. The counsel relied the judgments of this Court in

Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another (2009

(4) KHC 929), Santhosh M.V and others vs. State of

Kerala and others (2014 KHC 522) and also Bejoy K.V vs

State of Kerala and Another (2015 (5) KHC 507).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and CrlM.C..No.6192/2021

the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. A perusal of Annexure-A1 notice would not show

that it is an order passed in tune with Section 107 r/w Section

111 Cr.PC. In Girish P' case (supra), the mandate of Section

111 and Section 107 Cr.PC are mentioned. It will be better to

extract the relevant paragraph, which reads as follows:-

"5. S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables an executive Magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. S.111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under S.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any required, the necessity to setforth the substance of the information' in the order under CrlM.C..No.6192/2021

S.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him.

6. Annexure I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on which he was satisfied that proceedings under S.107 is to be initiated. The fact that petitioners are involved in Crime No. 207/2009 by itself is not a ground, to initiate proceedings, under S. 107. Though past conduct may be a guide to initiate proceedings, on that ground alone proceedings cannot be initiated unless as stated by the Full Bench in Moidu's case (supra) there is an imminent breach of peace warranting initiation of proceedings under S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973."

4. In Bejoy K.V's case (supra) also, this Court

considered the same point and relevant paragraph is extracted

hereunder:-

"17. Therefore, it is mandatory that an order issued CrlM.C..No.6192/2021

under S.111 CrPC by a Sub Divisional Magistrate exercising jurisdiction under S.107 CrPC, to set forth the substance of information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and type of securities, if any are required. The order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action under S.107 CrPC for preservation of peace and that thereupon he has passed such an order. An order issued under S.111 CrPC calling upon the person to show cause against execution of bond without disclosing therein the substance of information received and upon which satisfaction was arrived at by him, will not sustain in the eye of law. The order must contain all particulars relevant and sufficient to inform him about the accusation against him. This is because, the party calling upon must have to explain the circumstances against him or defend the proceedings and only on sufficient and satisfactory information being furnished, he will be able to answer the same. Therefore, the Sub Divisional Magistrate empowered with the authority to exercise the authority under S.107 CrPC to initiate proceedings must be vigilant and conscious while exercising the power and should bear in mind that the spirit envisaged by the Section is preservation of peace and public CrlM.C..No.6192/2021

tranquillity. The Sub Divisional Magistrate must see that the information supplied to him proposing action, was not one intended with a view to satisfy his personal vendetta. He must bear in mind that with the exercise of the power a man is called upon to execute a bond undertaking to preserve peace and tranquility for a period specified in the proceedings and therefore, it is likely to cast a stigma upon such a person that he was instrumental in breaching the peace or disturbing the public tranquility. If such a stigma is allowed to be fell upon an innocent person without any basis, that stigma cannot be removed later and the person would not be relegated to his real status of innocence, ultimately when such person was found irresponsible for any such alleged acts."

5. Moreover, in Santhosh M.V's case (supra), it is

observed that merely because the counter petitioner was

made an accused in one case alone is not sufficient to intitiate

proceedings against him under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Similarly,

in Ahammad Kabir v. State of Kerala and Another [2014

KHC 186] this Court observed that merely because a crime is

registered is not a ground to initiate the proceedings under

Section 107 Cr.P.C. A perusal of Annexure-A1 shows that only CrlM.C..No.6192/2021

one case is registered.

Therefore, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed.

All further proceedings against the petitioner based on

Annexure-A1 are quashed.

sd/-

                                     P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JV                                          JUDGE
 CrlM.C..No.6192/2021





                  APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 6192/2021

PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1       THE ORIGINAL OF THE ORDER DATED
                  22.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE SUB
                  DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE FORT KOCHI.