Madras High Court
Kasipandaram @ Kasirajan vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 August, 2023
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 04.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
and
W.M.P.(MD)Nos.14864 & 14867 of 2020
Kasipandaram @ Kasirajan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by its Secretary,
Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Musiri Sub Division, Trichy District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thathaiyangarpet Police Station,
Trichy District.
4.Omprakash ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the
records relating to the impugned order made by the second respondent
dated 21.08.2020 and quash the same as illegal.
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Mahaboob Athiff
For R1 to R3 : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi,
Additional Public Prosecutor
For R4 : Mr.M.Karthikeya Venkitachalapathy
ORDER
This Writ Petition has been filed to quash the impugned order
made by the second respondent dated 21.08.2020.
2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend
that the impugned order was passed by the second respondent by
invoking power under Section 107 Cr.P.C. But the second respondent,
being Deputy Superintendent of Police, cannot invoke power under
Section 107 Cr.P.C. Under Section 107 Cr.P.C., the Executive
Magistrate alone can exercise power and thereby, the proceedings
initiated by the second respondent under Section 107 Cr.P.C., is illegal
and it is liable to be quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
official respondents would contend that the impugned order was passed
for a particular period and the said period was over and thereby, this
petition become infructuous and the same is liable to be dismissed.
4.Heard both sides and perused the materials available in the
records.
5.On perusal of records shows that the second respondent police
has invoked power under Section 107 Cr.P.C. In this context, it is
relevant to extract the Section 107 Cr.P.C:-
107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases
(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 with
or without sureties for keeping the peace for such period,
not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
(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
It is apparent that the Executive Magistrate alone can exercise power
under Section 107 Cr.P.C. That apart, the learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in a case of Dvei Vs.
Executive Magistrate reported in 2020 6 CTC 157 wherein this Court
held that the Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot invoke powers of
the Executive Magistrate. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon the decision of this Court made in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.137 of
2018 dated 13.03.2023.
6.On careful reading of the above said judgments shows that the
Deputy Superintendent of Police cannot invoke power under Section 107
Cr.P.C. Hence, the impugned order passed by the second respondent is
liable to be quashed and accordingly, the proceeding initiated by the
second respondent under Section 107 Cr.P.C., is hereby set aside and this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.08.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gns
To
1.The Home Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Musiri Sub Division, Trichy District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thathaiyangarpet Police Station,
Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
P. DHANABAL,J.
gns
W.P.(MD)No.17834 of 2020
04.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
