Kerala High Court
Anshad vs State Of Kerala on 30 October, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 8TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 04.07.2025 IN MC NO.661
OF 2024 OF SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA
PETITIONER/COUNTER AFFIDAVIT
ANSHAD,
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.SHAJAHAN, BUNGLAW PARAMBIL, POWER HOUSE WARD,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688004
BY ADVS.
SRI.V.VINAY
SHRI.NISSAM NAZZAR
RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:
1 STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA,ERNAKULAM., PIN - 682031
2 STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
ALLAPPUZHA NORTH POLICE STATION,COIRFED LANE, SEA
VIEW WARD,ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001
3 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA
SUO MOTU IMPLEADED AS ADDITIONAL R3 AS PER ORDER
DATED 27.08.2025
OTHER PRESENT:
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
2
SR.PP.SMT.SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
3
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.661/2024 on the file of the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-I
preliminary order calling upon him to show cause why he
should not be required to enter into a bond for Rs.1,50,000/-
with two solvent sureties each with a sum of Rs.75,000/- to
keep peace for a period of 12 months as contemplated
under Section 107 read with Section 111 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,1973 ( in short, Cr.P.C.).
3. The petitioner contends that the petitioner is not
an accused in Crime No.239/2021. Moreover, in Annexure
I order the Sub Divisional Magistrate has not set forth the
substance of the information in the said order, which is
mandatory under Section 107 read with Section 111 of the
Cr.P.C., and the law laid down by this Court in Moidu vs.
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure-I
order may be quashed.
4. Heard; Sri.V.Vinay, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Smt. Seetha S., the learned Senior Public
Prosecutor.
5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to
Sections 107 and 111 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,which reads as follows:
107. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that
any person is likely to commit a breach of the 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, he may in the manner hereinafter provided, require
such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond 33[with or without sureties] for keeping the
peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate
thinks fit.
(2) Proceeding under this section may be taken before any
Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of
the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local
jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is
likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public
tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such
jurisdiction.
111. When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108,
Section 109 or Section 110, deems it necessary to require any
person to show cause under such section 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.
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
6. The above provisions explicitly postulates that the
Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that any
person is likely to commit a breach of peace, disturb the
public tranquility or does any wrongful act, and that there
are sufficient grounds to proceed against him, the Executive
Magistrate may, in the manner provided under Chapter VIII
of the Cr.P.C., require such person to show cause why he
should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for his
good behavior for such period, not exceeding one year
provided an order in writing is passed, setting forth the
substance of information received, the amount of bond to be
executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the
number of sureties.
7. It is the petitioner's case that, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate has passed Annexure-I preliminary order
without furnishing the substance of information. Instead,
the Sub Divisional Magistrate has merely stated that the
petitioner is involved in a crime registered by the Police.
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
8. In Jayanth K. C. v. State of Kerala (2025 KHC
1591), this Court has held that mere registration of a crime
and an anticipation of possible violence, without imminent
threat to peace, is insufficient to justify an order under
Section 111 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Similarly in Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala
and another (2009 (4) KHC 929), this Court has held that
unless the substance of information is stated in an order
passed under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C, the order passed
under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., is bad in law.
10. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Farhan Nasir Khan and others v. State of Maharashtra and
others (2020 KHC 3064) has succinctly held as follows:
"9.To put it simply, the requirement of law is that the
Magistrate has to form an opinion in writing contemplated
by S.111 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter proceed to issue a
show cause notice as contemplated by S.107 and along
with the show cause notice annex the opinion. But, in a
given case, it may happen that the language in which the
order/opinion contemplated under S.111 is not
comprehensible to the noticee, then the notice may
integrate the order/opinion and convey to the noticee in
the language which the noticee comprehends.
10. The purpose of the law is that the noticee is to be made
known the factual matrix comprising either the complaint
or the information received by the Magistrate and the
reasons for the opinion formed by the Magistrate.
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
10 (a). Since we find no contra opinion in Suleman Adam's
case (supra) vis-a-vis the opinion taken by the learned
Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this Court in the 8
decisions referred to in paragraph 3 of the order dated 23rd
December, 2014, we return the reference unanswered for
the reason the law is well settled and captured in the eight
decisions noted in paragraph 3 of the order of reference
dated 23rd December 2014".
In light of the principles laid down in the afore-cited
decisions and the fact that substance of information is
conspicuously absent in Annexure-I preliminary order and
Annexure IV summons, I am satisfied that the Crl.M.C. is to
be allowed. Accordingly Annexure-I preliminary order and
Annexure IV summons are set aside. The Sub Divisional
Magistrate is directed to reconsider the matter as per the
mandate under Sections 107 and 111 of the Cr.P.C. and in
accordance with law.
SD/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm30/10/2025
2025:KER:81795
CRL.MC NO. 7841 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-I TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
04.07.2025, ISSUED UNDER S.113 CR.P.C BY
THE SDM, ALAPPUZHA IN M.C NO.661/2024
Annexure-II THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
16.09.2022 JFCM-I, ALAPPUZHA IN C.C
Annexure-III TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN CRL.MC
NO.6074/2025 DATED 10.07.2025
Annexure-IV THE TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS DATED
10.07.2024 IN MC NO.661/2024 OF SDM,
ALAPPUZHA
