Madras High Court
Syed Ibrahim vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Police ... on 7 March, 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
COMMON ORDER PRONOUNCED : 23.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.ILANGOVAN
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.3981, 5073, 5283, 5341, 5971, 12023 to 12025,
13275, 13385, 13479, 13755, 13952, 13964 to 13968, 13981, 13988,
13989, 13991, 13994, 13997, 14018, 14021, 14025, 14031, 14035,
14037, 14038, 14166, 14399, 14651, 14699, 15090, 15329, 15352,
15358, 15369, 15375, 15417, 15490, 15563, 15571 and 15779 of 2021
and W.P.(MD) No.16334 of 2021
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) Nos.2203, 2204, 2897, 2898, 3051, 3082, 3083, 3438,
6162 to 6164, 6858, 6948, 6949, 7004, 7005, 7144, 7262, 7263, 7264,
7267, 7265, 7274, 7266, 7268 to 7272, 7276, 7277, 7290, 7291, 7294,
7296, 7292, 7295, 7299, 7300, 7303, 7304, 7332, 7334, 7337, 7338,
7343, 7344, 7346, 7347, 7349, 7352, 7354, 7356, 7358, 7359, 7411,
7578, 7739, 7765, 7766, 8063, 8235, 8250, 8251, 8252, 8253, 8256,
8257, 8260, 8262, 8283, 8284, 8323, 8340, 8344 and 8349 of 2021 and
W.M.P.(MD) Nos.13186 and 13187 of 2021
In Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3981 of 2021:-
1.Syed Ibrahim
2.Babu
3.Rafeek
4.Malik ... Petitioners
Vs.
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Law and Order,
cum Executive Magistrate,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/49
O/o.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Law and Order,
cum Executive Magistrate,
Madurai City.
2.The Inspector of Police,
C-1, Thideer Nagar (L&O) Police Station,
Maudrai City.
3.S.Meerkabrudeen Munshi @ Sakaline ...Respondents
PRAYER:Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned summon passed
by the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.
218/Ni.Se.Na.&Ka.Thu.Aa/Ma.Maa/2021 dated 07.03.2021 and quash
the same as illegal.
For Petitioners : Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For R1 & R2 : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
All these petitions are filed seeking quashment of the proceedings
initiated under Sections 107 and 110 of Cr.P.C. against these petitioners.
2. In a batch of Criminal Original Petitions in Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.
21560 of 2018 and batch, a common question of law and fact arose. The
discussion in the aforesaid batch of Criminal Original Petition runs like
this.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“4.... Way back in 1980, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the judgment reported in AIR 1981 SC 674 (Gopalanachari
Vs. State of Kerala), has observed the ill-effect of Section 110
Cr.P.C. Paragraph No.5 of the said judgment is extracted
hereunder:-
“A closer look at Section 110 of the Code in the setting of
peril to personal liberty thus becomes a necessity in this case.
Counsel for the State, Shri Francis, amicus curiae Shri Abdul
Kader and Senior Advocate Shri Tarkunde, agreed that unless the
preventive power under Section 110 were prevented from pervasive
misuse by zealous judicial vigilance and interpretative strictness,
many a poor man, maybe cast into prison by sticking the label of
'habitual' or by using such frightening expressions as 'desperate',
'dangerous' and 'hazardous to the community'. Law is what the law
does, even as freedom is what freedom does. Going by that
test, Section 110 cannot be permitted in our free Republic to pick up
the homeless and the have-nots as it did when under British
subjection because to-day to be poor is not a crime in this country.
George Bernard Shaw, though ignorant of 110, did sardonically
comment that "the greatest of evils and the worst of crimes is
poverty".
5. After analyzing the provisions in the light of Article
21 of the Constitution of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the concluding paragraph has observed as under:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
“Let us allay misunderstandings. We are clear in our mind
that prevention is better than cure, in criminal law as in medicines,
especially when there is judicial supervision. Society cannot be left
at the mercy of predators and bandits who, like wild beasts, prey
upon the weak and the innocent and become a menace to peace and
security of society. But liberty is a prized value and that is why we
have insisted not merely upon the Police having to be careful before
marching poor people into court under Section 110 but the Court
itself having to be gravely concerned about using preventive
provisions against helpless persons, not on formal testimony readily
produced to order as we have noticed in a recent case,[Prem Chand
Vs. Union of India, Writ Petition No.3050 of 1980 decided on
11.11.1980, MANU/SC/0191/1980:1981 CriL J5 (SC)] but on
convincing testimony of clear and present danger to society.”
6. So, with this cautious note struck by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court way back in 1980, while approaching the
matter under dispute, we will go to the second judgment with
regard to the consequences of dropping of proceedings or
execution of the bond for a particular period. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Singh and others
Vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1972 SC 2225, in
paragraph No.6, has observed like this.
“6.............We may at the outset state that we find it difficult
to accede to the submission made by Mr. Singh that once the period
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
for which bond was ordered to be executed has expired, the order
becomes nugatory and the proceedings under section 107 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure must be dropped. The proceedings
under section 107 of the Code, in our opinion, can continue despite
the fact that the period for which the bond was required to be
executed has expired. To hold otherwise would lead to the result
that the proceedings under the section would have, to be dropped if
the person proceeded against succeeds in protecting the
proceedings, even though the apprehension of breach of peace or
disturbance of public tranquillity still persists. At, the same time,
the court is not precluded from taking into account,, the subsequent
events. If the material on record discloses that though there was a
danger of breach of peace it one time, because, of the happening of
a subsequent event the danger of breach of peace has disappeared,
the court can drop the proceedings and discharge the person
proceeded against. Even in the absence of some positive evidence of
reconciliation between the opposing parties, if the court finds that
since, the date of incident complained of, a very long period has
elapsed during the course of which nothing untoward has
happened. the court may well draw the inference that the danger of
breach of peace has vanished. ”
7. This judgment guides us further to the effect that if
there is a long gap between the incident, that can be taken
into account. Even if the period, for which, the bond has been
executed, expired, the proceedings may not be dropped. So,
subsequent events can be taken into account and simply
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
because the bond was required to be expired, the proceedings
need not be dropped.
8. Now, we will go to the Full Bench decision of the
Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Nasir Khan Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2020 (206) AIC
9. The questions that has been referred to before the
Hon’ble Full Bench are that i) whether before issuing the
show cause notice under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., whether
separate order must be passed by the Magistrate.
ii) Whether the aforesaid order must accompany the
show cause notice issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
iii) If the show cause notice, which is in writing and
which sets forth (i) the substance of the information received,
(ii) amount of the bond, (iii) term for which it is to be in force,
(iv) number character and class sureties, if any, is required
and (v) grounds for apprehending breach of peace or
disturbance of public tranquility, whether a separate order
must be passed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
10. The Hon'ble Full Bench after going through the
entire evidence came to the conclusion that the Magistrate has
to form an opinion in writing as contemplated by Section 111
of Cr.P.C. and thereafter, proceed to issue the show cause
notice as contemplated by Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and along
with the show cause notice, the opinion must be annexed. It
can also be done in the notice itself by integrating all the
aforesaid facts.
11. Further explaining purpose of the notice, it is
observed that the noticee must known the factual matrix
comprising either in the complaint or in the information
received and the reasons for the opinion of the Magistrate. So,
according to the Hon'ble Full Bench decision, the purpose of
the notice is to inform the noticee with regard to all relevant
facts as stated above for the purpose of giving him a fair and
full opportunity to put forth his explanation. So, this judgment
of the Hon'ble Full Bench of Bombay High Court further
guides as to the issue.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. This position has been clarified in the famous case
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1971 SC 2486
(Madhu Limaye Vs. S.D.M.Monghyr). In paragraph Nos.36
and 37 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been observed as
under:-
“We have seen the provisions of Section 107. That section
says that action is to be taken in the manner here-in-after provided
and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such
a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This
is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the
law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should only be curtailed
according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of
the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasise the
safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the
consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the
interest of public order or in the interest of the ,general public.
In this very case the Apex Court went on to observe in Para 37 as
under:-
Since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause,
it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a
breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity at his
hands. Although the section speaks of the 'substance of the
information' it does not mean the order should not be full. It may
not repeat the information bodily but it must give proper notice of
what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the
foundation of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the
essence of the most important parts of the information.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Way back in 1909, the very same Bombay High
Court in a Full Bench decision reported in
MANU/MH/0054/1909 (Suleman Adam Vs. Emperor) deals
about the old provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
There is a specific provision to the effect that summons issued
under Section 114 of Cr.P.C. must be accompanied by a copy
of the order made under Section 112 of Cr.P.C. It appears that
this mandatory requirement has been brought by way of a
judicial order by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the
Farhan Nasir Khan’s judgment (referred supra). Now, the
position is very clear to the effect that the notice must
accompany the material that has been mentioned by the
Hon'ble Full Bench of the Bombay High Court.
14. With this backdrop in my mind, we will go to the
judgment of our High Court.
15. Even though the judgment reported in
MANU/TN/0706/2017 in the case of M.Krishnamurthy and
others Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue
Divisional Officer and others is frequently quoted and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
followed, after the aforesaid case, a more comprehensive
discussion has been made in Crl.R.C.No.78 of 2020 dated
25.09.2020. As I mentioned earlier, this is very comprehensive
in nature.
16. The discussion starts from the colonial error cases,
wherein, the proceedings were initiated against
V.O.Chidambaram Pillai under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Section
107 Cr.P.C. deals with the security for keeping the peace.
Section 110 deals about the security for good behavior from
habitual offenders.
17. A Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of
Yeluchuri Venkatachennaya and others Vs. Emperor
reported in AIR 1920 Madras 337 would conclude that the
proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is equal to trial
proceedings. There is one legal assistance was also permitted.
So that proposition of law was followed till date.
18. In AIR 1971 Ker 280 (FB) (Thekkittil Gopalankutti
Nair Vs. Melepurath Sankunni Ezhuthaseah), it has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
observed that proceedings under Sections 107 to 110, 133,
144, 145 and 488 of Cr.P.C. are the judicial proceedings in
nature. It is further observed that the term 'breach of peace'
requires subjective satisfaction as basis and insofar as the
term 'good behavior' is concerned, it rests upon objectivity.
So, except class (g) of Section 110 Cr.P.C., the existence of a
previous case is a requirement under Section 110 of Cr.P.C.
So, in that case, the power of the Deputy Commissioner of
Police was questioned. Whether he was a competent person to
initiate the proceedings was under discussion.
19. Now going back to the aforesaid M.Krishnamurthy's
judgment. 4 questions were formed and the same has been
extracted hereunder:-
"(a) Is a previous incident a sine qua non for
initiating Section 107 Cr.P.C. proceedings?
(b) Can proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. be initiated
even before an incident that is likely to disturb the peace or public
tranquillity takes place?
(c) Should a show cause order issued under Section
107 Cr.P.C. reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the
information and the need for taking action?
(d) Can a show cause order under Section 107 Cr.P.C. be per
se subjected to judicial review?"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. In the aforesaid Madhu Limaye's judgment, the
Hon'ble Division Bench has observed as under:-
"47. The gist of the Chapter is the prevention of crimes and
disturbances of public tranquillity and breaches of the peace. There
is no need to prove overt acts although if overt acts have taken
place they will have to be considered. The action being preventive is
not based on overt act but on the potential danger to be averted.
These provisions are thus essentially conceived in the interest of
public order in the sense defined by us. They are also in the interest
of the general public. If prevention of crimes, and breaches of peace
and disturbance of public tranquillity are directed to the
maintenance of the even tempo of community life, there can be no
doubt that they are in the interest of public order."
21. Regarding the 1st question, it has been answered
that previous incident is not a sine qua the breach of peace.
The likelihood of breach of peace is enough to initiate the
proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C
22. Regarding the 2nd question, it has been answered
that the proceedings can be initiated even before the incident
that is likely to disturb the peace and tranquility takes place.
23. Regarding the 3rd question, it has been answered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the subjective opinion at the stage of Section 107 of
Cr.P.C cannot be a matter for judicial review. So, all these
questions were answered to the effect that the truth of the
information can be tested only in the Enquiry under Section
116 of Cr.P.C.
24. Regarding the 4th question, it has been answered
that the order must contain substance of the information
received. The information is necessary for the noticee to
challenge the allegations. A 'substance' here means the
essence of the information that has been received by the
Magistrate from the police or otherwise. Since in the
conclusion paragraph, it has been observed that if preventive
action proceedings are not interfered at the threshold, there is
every likelihood of tempers cooling down during the
proceedings before the Executive Magistrate. So the Courts
must be very slow in interfering with an order passed under
Section 111 of Cr.P.C. The Society is the ultimate sufferer, if
the order passed under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. is interfered
needlessly on the ground of protracting the individual rights.
We came to an end of discussion with regard to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requirements of law. With this backdrop in my mind, now we
are going to the individual case on hand.”
3. In the light of the aforesaid observations, now we will take the
present cases for discussion.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.3981 of 2021:-
It is the case of the petitioners that on 02.03.2021 at about 05.30
pm., while the 1st petitioner, who is stated to be 'A' party, was
sermonizing about Prophet Mohamed, the private respondents herein
along with others criminally intimidated and assaulted the petitioners 1
and 2. They were admitted in the Government Hospital, Madurai for
treatment. Based upon the aforesaid incident, a case in Crime No.82 of
2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 307 and
506(ii) of IPC has been registered.
2. In respect of the aforesaid occurrence, the counter case in Crime
No.83 of 2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147,
294(b), 323 and 506(ii) of IPC has been registered against 10 persons
and now, it is under investigation. In the meantime, the impugned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
proceeding dated 07.03.2021 has been initiated against the petitioners.
3. Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has been filed
mainly on the ground that because of the election campaign, trouble
arose between the parties, in respect of which, the aforesaid two criminal
cases have been registered. On the basis of the recommendation made by
the 2nd respondent herein, now proceedings have been initiated by
arraying the two groups as 'A' and 'B' party, which is not valid under law
against the petitioners.
4. Reading of the impugned summon shows that in respect of
religious prayer issue, trouble arose between the two groups on
02.03.2021 at about 05.30 pm., for which, the aforesaid two cases have
been registered. Because of the group rivalry, now breach of peace is
apprehended in that area. So, on the basis of the recommendation made
by the 2nd respondent herein, the impugned summon has been issued. It
shows further that it satisfies the requirement of law, since apprehension
of breach of peace is true in that area because of the group rivalry. But it
suffers from one technical ground, arraying the parties as 'A' and 'B' in a
single proceeding is illegal, which is not permissible under law in view
of the above referred Krishnamoorthy's judgment.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. On the sole ground itself, this petition stands allowed and the
impugned notice dated 07.03.2021 in Na.Ka.Nos.218/Ni.Se.Na. and
Ka.Thu.Aa/Ma.Maa/2021 is set aside.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5073 of 2021:-
The petitioner is running a mobile service shop at Pattukottai. On
the basis of the false confession statement of the co-accused, a case in
Crime No.681 of 2002 for the offences punishable under Section 5 of the
Indian Explosive Substance Act, Section 9(B)(1)(b) of Explosive Act and
Section 120(B) of IPC has been registered against the petitioner and he
was tried in S.C.No.3 of 2004 by the Special Court, Poonamallee. He
was convicted, against which, he preferred an appeal before this Court in
Crl.A.No.133 of 2015 and suspension of sentence was also granted. In
the meantime, during the election campaign in 2014, the public of
Mallipattinam opposed the candidate to enter into the village, in respect
of which, a case in Crime No.62 of 2014 for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 506(i) and 153(A) of IPC r/w
196(1)(a) of Cr.P.C. and now, it is pending in PRC.No.65 of 2017.
Another case was also registered in Crime No.30 of 2011 for the offences
punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 336 and 307 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
IPC and the same is now pending in PRC.No.18 of 2019. At this
juncture, the impugned proceeding in M.C.No.68/2021/A3 dated
26.03.2021 has been issued against the petitioner and notice was also
served. In pursuance of the notice, the petitioner appeared before the
Enquiry Officer and an explanation has also been given by him.
Challenging the said proceedings, this petition is filed mainly on the
ground that the impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement of law
as set out above.
2. Reading of the impugned notice shows that it has been prepared
in the printed format, in which, the particulars have been filled up by
pen. It clearly shows the non application of mind on the part of the 1st
respondent, while initiating the proceedings, which has been deprecated
in the aforesaid judgment.
3. On the aforesaid sole ground itself, this petition is allowed and
the impugned notice dated 26.03.2021 in M.C.No.68/2021/A3 is hereby
set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5283 of 2021:-
The petitioner herein was doing a petty business of supplying tea
and coffee to the employees working in an industry called Vetrivel
Explosives Private Limited. In 2016, because of the accident that had
occurred in the aforesaid company, 10 persons died. So, the 4th
respondent alleged to have instructed the workers including the
petitioner herein not to go for work. But for the livelihood of the
petitioner, she went to work and because of that, the villagers denied
pathway, water supply and other necessities to the petitioner. The
petitioner was also prevented from entering the temple premises.
2. On 23.03.2020, the petitioner's son died. Even at that time also,
she was not permitted to bury the body. The villagers did not attend the
final rites. So, a criminal complaint was given by the petitioner against
the 4th respondent and action was also initiated. However, instead of
registering FIR against the 4th respondent, now proceeding has been
initiated against the petitioner. Challenging the same, this petition is filed
mainly on the ground that the impugned notice does not satisfy the
requirement of law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. Reading of the impugned notice shows that based upon the
complaint given by this petitioner, proceeding has been initiated and
because of the dispute between this petitioner and the villagers, breach of
peace is apprehended. It is very unfortunate that the victim has now
become the accused in this matter and the proceeding has been initiated
by the 1st respondent on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2 nd
respondent herein. Moreover, it does not satisfy the requirement of law
as stated above.
4. Instead of registering the FIR, a peace committee meeting ought
to have been arranged by the respondents herein to sort out the issue
amicably between the petitioner and the villagers. Justification of the
proceedings in the opinion of this Court is not proper. So, this petition is
liable to be allowed and accordingly, allowed, directing the 3rd
respondent herein to recommend initiation of the peace committee
meeting between the petitioner and the villagers to sort out the issue. On
such recommendation, the 1st respondent herein shall conduct the peace
committee meeting to resolve the dispute. Based upon the outcome of the
peace committee meeting, further steps may be taken by this petitioner or
by the Revenue Officials herein. The aforesaid peace committee meeting
shall be concluded within a period of one month from the date of receipt
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
of a copy of this order. The impugned notice dated 24.03.2021 in
Na.Ka.No.A2/1534/2021 is hereby quashed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5341 of 2021:-
The petitioner herein is a coolie worker. In 2017, a case has been
registered against him in Crime No.270 of 2007 for the offences
punishable under Sections 425, 294(b), 354, 302 and 120(b) of IPC. He
was tried by the learned 3rd Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Tirunelveli and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, against
which, he preferred an appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.232 of 2008 before this
Court, which was also dismissed. Challenging the same, he preferred
SLP(Crl.)No.4853 of 2016 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and bail
was also granted. So, the impugned proceeding in EMC.No.90/2021
dated 03.03.2021 has been initiated against the petitioner. Challenging
the same, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the
impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement of law as set out above.
2. The impugned notice is dated 03.03.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that the petitioner was involved in the aforesaid case and history
sheet has also been opened against him. He has been kept under
surveillance. So, the impugned notice has been issued seeking
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
explanation as to why he should not be directed to execute a bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- to maintain a good behavior.
3. No doubt, the petitioner has been involved in the aforesaid
crime and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Now, challenging
the same, an appeal is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the
impugned notice, it has been stated that on 14.02.2021 at about 07.00
pm., the petitioner was found roaming in the VST Junction area. On
enquiry by the patrolling police team, the petitioner did not give any
proper reply, based upon which, the aforesaid impugned proceeding has
been initiated.
4. No doubt, the petitioner has been granted bail by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. When such being the case, initiation of proceeding may
not be proper. Furthermore, the impugned notice does not satisfy the
requirement of law as stated above. Therefore, the impugned notice in
EMC.No.90/2021 dated 03.03.2021 is hereby set aside and accordingly,
this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.5971 of 2021:-
It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2019, the case has
been registered in Crime No.238 of 2019 for the offences punishable
under Sections 147, 342, 347, 364, 302, 506(2) of IPC against him as
well as others, wherein, he has been arrayed as 6th accused and it is now
pending investigation.
2. History Sheet has also been opened against the petitioner and
the same has been challenged before this Court by way of filing W.P.
(MD) No.13333 of 2020. It was also ordered. However, the 2nd
respondent refused to remove the petitioner's name from the History
Sheet. In the meantime, proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in
M.C.No.117 of 2021 dated 05.03.2021 has been initiated against the
petitioner and notice has also been ordered, wherein, subjective
satisfaction of the 1st respondent with regard to the likelihood of breach
of peace has not been mentioned.
3. The proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated
in M.C.No.117 of 2021 and notice has also been ordered to the petitioner
to appear before the 1st respondent on 08.03.2021 at about 11.00 am.,
Except this fact, no other facts are mentioned and not even the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
requirement of law as set out by this Court more particularly in the case
of M.Krishnamurthy and others Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer and others reported in
MANU/TN/0706/2017 has been complied with. This impugned notice
dated 05.03.2021 passed in M.C.No.117 of 2021 also does not satisfy the
requirement of law as stated above and accordingly, it is set aside. This
Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.12023 to 12025 of 2021:-
The petitioners have been wrongly implicated in Crime Nos.192,
10 and 985 of 2010 on the file of the 2nd respondent police, upon which,
the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated against
them. The petitioners also executed a bond each for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
before the 1st respondent and an undertaking was also given by them that
if any breach of peace is noticed, then Rs.1,00,000/- will be imposed as
fine upon them. In the meantime, the 2 nd respondent has reported a letter
to the 1st respondent stating that violating the bond given by the
petitioners on 10.03.2021, they involved another crime in Crime No.219
of 2021, which was registered for the offences punishable under
Sections147, 148, 323, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) of IPC @ 147, 148, 323,
294(b), 324, 506(ii) and 307 of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. Based upon the report filed by the 2nd respondent, summons
have been issued in M.C.Nos.975/2021/C3 dated 09.08.2021 against the
petitioners for giving explanation. It is the case of the petitioners that due
to some election motive only, a false case has been registered against
them. Counter case has also been registered against the defacto
complainant and others in Crime No.229 of 2021. So, the notices
impugned issued by the 1st respondent are not valid under law, since it
does not satisfy the requirement of law under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.
3. The impugned notices are dated 09.08.2021, wherein, it has
been stated that the petitioners are involved in the aforesaid criminal
cases and also executed bonds on 10.03.2021 keeping a good behavior
for a period of one year. Violating the aforesaid bonds, they again
involved in another criminal case. So, they were directed to explain for
that.
4. Perusal of records show that the petitioners had executed bonds
on 10.03.2021. During the aforesaid period, it appears that the criminal
case has been registered on 06.04.2021. Since notices have been issued
only on the ground of violation of the bonds, the petitioners have to
appear before the Enquiry Officer to proceed with the enquiry by setting
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
out their defense stating that it does not satisfy the requirement of law as
stated in the case of M.Krishnamurthy and others Vs. Sub Divisional
Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer and others reported in
MANU/TN/0706/2017.
5. In view of the foregoing discussions, these Criminal Original
Petitions are disposed of . The petitioners are at liberty to appear before
the Enquiry Officer and cooperate with him to complete the enquiry.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13275 of 2021:-
The petitioner is an Agriculturist and because of the election
dispute between the two groups, at the instigation of the opposite party,
now proceeding has been initiated against this petitioner under Section
107 of Cr.P.C. and show cause notice has also been issued under Section
111 of Cr.P.C. Challenging the same, this petition came to be filed mainly
on the ground that printed format has been used by the 1st respondent for
initiating the proceedings.
2. The impugned proceeding is dated 22.07.2021. Perusal of the
impugned notice shows that as stated by the petitioner, printed format has
been used, where the gaps have been filled up. This shows the non
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
application of mind on the side of the 1st respondent before initiating the
proceedings, which is not permissible under law. Moreover, the
subjective satisfaction on the party of the 1st respondent and the
substance of the information that has been furnished by the 2nd
respondent herein have not been mentioned in the impugned notice,
which warrants interference of this Court.
3. In view of the above, this petition is allowed and the impugned
notice dated 22.07.2021 in M.C.No.590/2021 is hereby set aside.
However, liberty is granted to the 1st respondent herein in this case to
initiate fresh proceedings against this petitioner by properly following
the procedures as stated above.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13385 of 2021:-
The petitioner herein is an agriculturist and he is working for the
development and betterment by his agricultural activities to his
community people. Except the involvement of the aforesaid communal
activities, no other criminal case has been registered against this
petitioner. However, the impugned proceeding under Section 110 of
Cr.P.C in M.C.No.A3/275/2021/7508/2021 dated 18.08.2021 has been
initiated against him. Seeking quashment of the same, this petition has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned proceeding does not
satisfy the requirement of law as set out above.
2. The impugned notice is dated 18.08.2021. Reading of the
impugned notice shows that the petitioner was directed to give
explanation as to why he should not be directed to execute a bond for a
sum of Rs.50,000/- to maintain good behavior for a period of one year.
Except stating so, no other particulars with regard to the subjective
satisfaction, substance of the information etc have been mentioned.
3. In view of the above, the impugned proceeding in
M.C.No.A3/275/2021/7508/2021 dated 18.08.2021 is liable to be set
aside and accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. This Criminal
Original Petition stands allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.13479, 13794 and 13800 of 2021:-
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13479 of 2021:-
The petitioner herein is a Government Contractor and also an
Office Bearer of a political party. Because of the dispute with regard to
collecting the rent from the Vedasandur daily market, dispute arose
between the parties and because of the false statement given by some
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
people, the case has been registered, upon which, proceeding in M.C.No.
162/2021/A7 dated 16.08.2021 has been initiated against the petitioner.
Challenging the same, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground
that the impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement of law as stated
above.
2. The impugned notice is dated 16.08.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that the petitioner herein is a habitual offender and he may indulge
in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and order. So, he
has been directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer to explain as to
why he should not be directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-
for keeping a good behavior for a period of 1 year.
3. Reading of the impugned notice shows that the substance of the
information has not been properly stated and the subjective satisfaction
on the part of the 1st respondent has been mentioned.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has produced a list of
cases, in which, this petitioner has been involved. He has been charged
under NDPS Act and Explosive Substance Act and in most of the cases,
he has been acquitted. It is stated that 17 cases are pending.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. No doubt, the petitioner herein is a habitual offender. So, the
initiation of proceedings by the 1st respondent cannot be found fault.
However, it suffers from the aforesaid legal infirmity with regard to the
subjective satisfaction. On the sole ground, this petition is liable to be
allowed and accordingly, it stands allowed. The impugned proceeding in
M.C.No.162/2021/A7 dated 16.08.2021 is hereby set aside.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.13794 and 13800 of 2021:-
In view of the order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13479 of 2021, the
impugned notice dated 16.08.2021 passed in M.C.Nos.165/2021/A7 and
163/2021/A7,0 which were challenged in those Criminal Original
Petitions, are liable to be quashed, since common issue and facts are
involved in such matters and accordingly, the same are quashed and the
Criminal Original Petitions are hereby allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13755 of 2021:-
The petitioner has been wrongly implicated in a criminal case in
Crime No.193 of 2018, which was registered for the offences punishable
under Section 294(b) of IPC. Based upon the aforesaid registration of the
FIR, now proceeding under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated
against the petitioner without following the requirements of law in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
M.C.No.A3/246/2021-5895/2021 dated 06.08.2021. Challenging the
same, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that before
initiation of the proceedings, subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st
respondent has not been recorded.
2. The impugned notice is dated 06.08.2021. Reading of the
impugned notice shows that proceeding has been initiated under Section
110 of Cr.P.C. and the petitioner herein was directed to appear before the
Enquiry Officer on 16.08.2021. Except stating so, no more particulars
have been mentioned. So, it does not satisfy the requirement of law as
stated above. Simply because the petitioner herein has been arrayed as
accused in the aforesaid crime and he cannot be considered as a habitual
offender. It is a petty case, for which, no serious action need to be taken.
3. In view of the above, the impugned notice in
M.C.No.A3/246/2021-5895/2021 dated 06.08.2021 is hereby set aside
and accordingly, this petition is allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13952 of 2021:-
The petitioner has been implicated as accused in Crime No.187 of
2021, which was registered on the basis of the complaint given by one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kadhar Sulthan for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b),
323, 506(i) of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act. It has been stated in the complaint that this
petitioner along with other persons had trespassed into the garden and
assaulted the defacto complainant and his mother, father etc.
2. A counter case has also been registered based upon the
complaint given by the petitioner against the defacto complainant in
FIR.No.186 of 2021. Because of the registration of the aforesaid 2 FIR,
the 2nd respondent herein has sent a recommendation to the 1st respondent
to initiate action under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., based upon which, the
proceedings in M.C.No.130 of 2021 dated 06.08.2021 has been initiated
against the petitioner. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed
mainly on the ground that there is no subjective satisfaction on the part
of the 1st respondent before initiating the proceedings.
3. The impugned notice is dated 06.08.2021, wherein, it has been
mentioned that the 2nd respondent herein has made a recommendation
stating that because of the dispute between the parties, there is likelihood
of breach of peace in the locality. So, a show cause notice has been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
issued against the petitioner to explain as to why he should not be
directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. Except stating so, no
other particulars have been mentioned. Subjective satisfaction of the 1st
respondent ought to have been recorded as per the requirement of law.
4. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned notice dated
06.08.2021 in M.C.No.130 of 2021 is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. This Criminal Original Petition
stands allowed.
13994, 13997 of 2021:-
In view of the order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.13952 of 2021, the
impugned notice dated 06.08.2021 passed in M.C.Nos.128, 129, 135,
134, 137, 132, 136, 127, 138, 131 and 133 of 2021, which were
challenged in those Criminal Original Petitions, are liable to be quashed,
since common issue and facts are involved in such matters and
accordingly, the same are quashed and the Criminal Original Petitions are
hereby allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14018, 14021, 14025, 14031, 14035, 14037, 14038,
15352, 15358, 15369 and 15375 of 2021:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14018 of 2021:-
The case of the petitioner is that he is working as President of
Jamiah Masjid Administrative Committee and his election has been
approved by the General Body. One Mohamed yakoof, who was
previously holding the post of Correspondent in the said school, was
found to have committed serious malpractice and irregularities. So, he
was removed from the post of Correspondent. So, new election was hold.
2. In view of the aforesaid vengeance, the aforesaid person has
filed a civil suit and also gave a false complaint against the new
committee members. Without noticing the ground realities, the 2nd
respondent has made recommendation to the 1st respondent, upon which
proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated. Challenging
the same, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that without
any material, the proceeding has been initiated and mechanically it has
been decided.
3. The impugned notice is dated 24.08.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that the petitioner may indulge in activities, which may cause
breach of peace and prejudice to the public law and order. So, he was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
directed to explain as to why he should not be directed to execute a bond
to keep good behavior for a period of one year. Except stating so, no
other particulars are mentioned. Further more, the impugned notice does
not disclose the substance of the information as well as the subjective
satisfaction of the 1st respondent, before initiating the proceedings.
4. In these circumstances, the impugned notice in M.C.No. 157 of
2021 dated 24.08.2021 on the file of the 1 st respondent is liable to be set
aside and that the same is set aside. This Criminal Original Petition is
allowed, accordingly.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.14021, 14025, 14031, 14035, 14037, 14038, 15352,
15358, 15369 and 15375 of 2021
In view of the order passed in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14018 of 2021, the
impugned notice dated 24.08.2021 passed in M.C.Nos.159, 160, 162,
163, 165, 167, 158, 161, 164 and 166 of 2021, which were challenged in
those Criminal Original Petitions, are liable to be quashed, since
common issue and facts are involved in such matters and accordingly, the
same are quashed and the Criminal Original Petitions are hereby allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14166 of 2021:-
The case has been registered against the petitioner in Crime No.
144 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Section 8 (C) r/w 22(1)
and 25 of NDPS Act. Later he was released on bail. After a period of 5
years, the 1st respondent herein summoned the petitioner in connection
with the registration of the FIR. Challenging the proceeding, this petition
has been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned notice does not
satisfy the requirement of law.
2. The impugned notice is dated 23.08.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that this petitioner executed a bond under Section 110 (e) of
Cr.P.C. on 19.02.2021 in M.C.No.27/21 for keeping good behavior, but
against the bond, on 03.07.2021, the petitioner was found in possession
of 23.300 kgm of Kanja, upon which, the case has been registered. Since
violation of bond is noticed, he has to participate in the proceedings.
However, the petitioner sought time to file his counter through his
counsel and therefore, time is granted till 01.09.2021. But, without
participating the enquiry, this petition came to be filed on 08.09.2021
against the proceedings, which is not permissible under law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. As per Section 122-1(b) of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has to appear
before the Enquiry Officer. Without resorting such process, he has filed
this petition, challenging the proceedings, which is not at all
maintainable under law. So, the argument that the impugned notice does
not satisfy the requirement of law and subjective satisfaction has not
been mentioned is not at all applicable to the facts and circumstances of
this case.
4. In view of the above, this petition deserves to be dismissed and
accordingly, it is dismissed with a direction to the petitioner to appear
before the Enquiry Officer and to participate in the enquiry process to put
up his defense.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14399 of 2021:-
Proceeding in M.C.No.109 of 2021 dated 16.07.2021 has been
initiated against the petitioner without any proper recommendation on
the side of the 2nd respondent. No subjective satisfaction has been
recorded in the impugned proceeding. Seeking quashment of the
aforesaid proceeding, this petition has been filed on the aforesaid ground.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The impugned notice is dated 16.07.2021. Reading of the
impugned notice shows that the petitioner may involve in activities,
which are prejudicial to the public peace and order. Except that, nothing
has been stated in the impugned proceeding with regard to the subjective
satisfaction and the substance of the information that has been furnished
by the 2nd respondent. So, the impugned notice dated 16.07.2021 in
M.C.No.109 of 2021, does not satisfy the requirement of law, is liable to
be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. This petition stands allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14651 of 2021:-
The petitioner herein is a student, who is undergoing graduation.
He has been falsely implicated in Crime No.153 of 2020, which has been
registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294b,
323, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of IPC, wherein, he has been arrayed as 2 nd
accused. On the date of occurrence, he was not present in the place of
occurrence. Since the other accused are the relatives of the petitioner, he
has been wrongly implicated in the aforesaid crime, based upon which,
proceeding under Section 110 Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.88/2020 dated
17.03.2021 has been initiated. Challenging the same, this petition has
been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned notice does not satisfy
the requirement of law as stated above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. In the impugned notice, it has been stated that the petitioner may
involve in activities, which are prejudicial to the public peace and order.
So, on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2 nd respondent
herein, the impugned proceeding has been initiated. Except that no other
particulars with regard to the subjective satisfaction and substance of the
information etc have been mentioned.
3. In view of the above, the impugned proceeding in M.C.No.
88/2020 dated 17.03.2021 is liable to be set aside and accordingly, it is
set aside. This petition is allowed.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.14699 of 2021:-
On the basis of the false complaint given by the defacto
complainant, a case in Crime No.1410 of 2021 has been registered
against the petitioners. Similarly, on the basis of the complaint given by
the petitioners, a counter case case has also been registered against the
defacto complainant in Crime No.1411 of 2021. Pending the aforesaid
investigation, the impugned proceeding has been initiated under Section
107 of Cr.P.C in Na.Ka.No.1009/Ni/Se.Na.&Kaa.Thoo.Aa/Ma.Maa/2021
dated 16.08.2021. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed
mainly on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirement of law as set
out above.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The impugned notice is dated 16.08.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that in respect of the tenancy issue, two groups are involved in the
trouble. So, the aforesaid two cases have been registered against them
and based upon that, the proceeding has been initiated. It appears that
proceeding has been initiated against both the parties in a single
proceeding, which is not permissible under law. on the sole ground itself,
this petition is liable to allowed and accordingly, it is allowed. The
impugned notice dated 16.08.2021 passed in Na.Ka.No.
1009/Ni/Se.Na.&Kaa.Thoo.Aa/Ma.Maa/2021 is hereby set aside.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15090 of 2021:-
In respect of the administration of the temple, the 1st petitioner
herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.101 of 2021 before the learned Principal
District Munsif, Karaikudi seeking declaration that the trust created by
Kannan and 3 others is null and void and now, the suit is pending.
2. Pending the aforesaid suit, proceeding under Section 107 of
Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the petitioners in M.C.No.59 of
2021/B1/(6178/2021) by the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2021, arraying
both the groups as 'A' and 'B' party. Challenging the aforesaid
proceeding, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement of law as stated above
and apart from that arraying both the parties as 'A' and 'B' is not valid
under law.
3. The impugned notice is dated 24.09.2021. Reading of the
impugned notice shows that because of the dispute over the worship of
the temple, dispute arose between the two group of community people
against the order issued by the Government in view of the COVID-19
protocol. One group of people performed the Kumbabishekam, which
was objected to by other people. Based upon the recommendation made
by the 2nd respondent herein, proceeding has been initiated. No doubt,
substance of the information has been mentioned in the impugned notice,
but subjective satisfaction on the part of the 1st respondent with regard to
the apprehension of breach of peace is not mentioned. Similarly, arraying
both the rival groups as 'A' and 'B' party in a single proceeding is not
permissible under law as stated above.
4. On the aforesaid discussion, this petition is allowed and the
impugned proceeding in M.C.No.59 of 2021/B1/(6178/2021) on the file
of the 1st respondent dated 24.09.2021 is hereby set aside.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15329 of 2021:-
The petitioner is a agricultural coolie worker. He has been falsely
implicated in Crime No.153 of 2020, which was registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 307 and
506 (ii) of IPC and wherein he has been arrayed as 2nd accused. After
that, no case has been registered against him. Based upon the aforesaid
pendency of the criminal case, proceeding under Section 110 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure has been initiated against him and notice has been
served upon him. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed.
2. Perusal of records would indicate that the 2nd respondent has
made recommendation to the 1st respondent stating that proceedings
under Section 110 Cr.P.C., must be initiated against the petitioner and
except that, no other particulars are mentioned. So, the subjective
satisfaction on the parti of the 1st respondent and the substance of the
information that has been received have not been mentioned in the
impugned notice, which warrants interference of this Court.
3. In view of the above, the impugned notice dated 17.03.2021
passed in M.C.No.27 of 2021 on the file of the 1st respondent is hereby
set aside and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15417 of 2021:-
The petitioners are working as Auto Drivers and they are the
members of All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC). The case has
been registered against the petitioners by the 2nd respondent herein and
except the aforesaid case, they are having no other case or crime. Now
proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated against them
and others. Based upon the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent
herein, proceeding in M.C.No.292 of 2021 has been initiated against the
petitioners. Challenging the same, this petition came to be filed mainly
on the ground that the impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement
of law as stated above.
2. Reading of the impugned notice shows that except stating that
on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent,
apprehending breach of peace by the petitioners, the impugned notice has
been issued, no other particulars with regard to the subjective satisfaction
as well as the substance of the information that has been furnished by the
2nd respondent have not been mentioned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. In view of the above, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed
and the impugned notice passed in M.C.No.292 of 2021 dated
24.08.2021 is set aside.
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.15490, 15571 and 15579 of 2021:-
The petitioners herein after completing the education are trying to
secure Government Job by writing competitive examination. However,
on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent herein,
proceedings in M.C.Nos.262, 263 and 260 of 2021 dated 24.08.2021
have been initiated against the petitioners. Challenging the same, these
petitions have been filed mainly on the ground that the impugned notices
do not satisfy the requirement of law as stated above.
2. Reading of the impugned notices would indicate that except
stating that on the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd
respondent, the impugned proceedings have been initiated and
explanation has been called for as to why they should not be directed to
furnish security to value of Rs.50,000/- each, no other particulars with
regard to the subjective satisfaction as well as the substance of the
information that has been furnished by the 2nd respondent have not been
mentioned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. In view of the above, these Criminal Original Petitions are
allowed and the impugned notices passed in M.C.Nos.262, 263 and 260
of 2021 dated 24.08.2021 are hereby set aside.
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15563 of 2021:-
Challenging the proceedings initiated in M.C.No.Nil/2021/A3,
dated 23.09.2021, this petition has been filed mainly on the ground that
the requirement of law as set out in the case of M.Krishnamurthy and
others Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer
and others reported in MANU/TN/0706/2017 has not been satisfied.
2. The impugned proceeding is dated 23.09.2021, wherein, it has
been stated that there is every likelihood of breach of peace to be
committed by the petitioner and so, he was called upon to appear before
the Enquiry Officer, since recommendation has been made by the 2nd
respondent herein. Except that, no other particulars are stated.
3. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings in
M.C.No.Nil/2021/A3, dated 23.09.2021 on the file of the 1st respondent
herein is hereby set aside and this Criminal Original Petition stands
allowed, accordingly.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15490 of 2021:-
A wrong proceeding has been initiated against this petitioner
in M.C/42(Cr.P.C.107)/2021 dated 08.09.2021 on the ground that this
petitioner is involved in Crime No.23 of 2021 on the file of the 2nd
respondent. But actually the petitioner is not involved in the aforesaid
crime. On the basis of the recommendation made by the 2nd respondent,
now proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. has been initiated. The
impugned notice does not satisfy the requirement of law.
2. The impugned notice is dated 08.09.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that the petitioner may involve in activities, which may cause
breach of peace. On that ground, he was called upon to appear before the
Enquiry Officer to give explanation as to why the proceeding should not
be initiated against him. The impugned summon shows that two groups
of persons have been arrayed as 'A' and 'B' parties. Except stating so, no
other particulars have been mentioned in the impugned notice.
3. Further, on the basis of the complaint given by one Paramantha
Sugumar, a case in Crime No.23 of 2021 has been registered against the
petitioner and 3 others for the offences punishable under Section 147 of
IPC and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property (Prevention of Damage
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and Loss) Act, 1992, wherein, it has been stated that damages has been
caused to the motor room, electricity connection and pipelines in Beach
Colony by the accused persons. However, this petitioner has not been
arrayed as accused in the aforesaid crime. But, in the impugned summon,
this petitioner has been shown as respondent in the 'A' party. So, the
connection between the aforesaid crime and the aforesaid proceeding is
not clear on record. Further, arraying the parties as 'A' and 'B' in the very
same proceeding is not legal as stated above and moreover, the impugned
notice does not satisfy the minimum requirement of law as stated above.
4. On the foregoing discussions, the impugned notice in
M.C/42(Cr.P.C.107)/2021 dated 08.09.2021 is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, it stands set aside. This Criminal Original Petition is
allowed.
W.P.(MD) No.16334 of 2021:-
Proceeding under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.85/2021 dated
29.03.2021 has been initiated against this petitioner and he has also
appeared before the Enquiry Officer twice, but without passing any
orders, now he is insisted by the 1st respondent to execute a bond to keep
good behavior. Challenging the impugned proceeding, this petition has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
been filed mainly on the ground that it does not satisfy the requirement of
law as stated above.
2. The impugned notice is dated 29.03.2021, wherein, it has been
stated that the petitioner may involve in activities, which are prejudicial
to the public peace and order. Except stating that, no other particulars
with regard to the subjective satisfaction and the substance of the
information have been mentioned. Therefore, the impugned proceeding
in M.C.No.85/2021 dated 29.03.2021 is liable to be set aside and
accordingly, it is set aside. This Writ Petition stands allowed. No costs.
3. Consequently, all the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
Index : Yes/No 23 .12.2021
Internet : Yes/No
mm
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of
the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Law and Order,
cum Executive Magistrate,
O/o.The Deputy Commissioner of Police Law and Order,
cum Executive Magistrate,
Madurai City.
2.The Inspector of Police,
C-1, Thideer Nagar (L&O) Police Station,
Maudrai City.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.ILANGOVAN. J.
mm
Pre-delivery common order made in
Crl.O.P.(MD) Nos.3981, 5073, 5283, 5341, 5971, 12023 to 12025,
13275, 13385, 13479, 13755, 13952, 13964 to 13968, 13981, 13988,
13989, 13991, 13994, 13997, 14018, 14021, 14025, 14031, 14035,
14037, 14038, 14166, 14399, 14651, 14699, 15090, 15329, 15352,
15358, 15369, 15375, 15417, 15490, 15563, 15571 and 15779 of 2021
and W.P.(MD) No.16334 of 2021
23.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
