Mr. Dilip @ Dmr vs The State
2023 Latest Caselaw 7325 Mad

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 7325 Mad
Judgement Date : 30 June, 2023

Madras High Court

Mr. Dilip @ Dmr vs The State on 30 June, 2023

Crl.R.C.No.1183 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 30.06.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

Crl.R.C.No.1183 of 2023 &
Crl.M.P.No.9216 of 2023

Mr. Dilip @ DMR ... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State, represented by
its Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate
and Revenue Divisional Officer,
Arakkonam.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Arakkonam Town Police Station,
Ranipet District. ... Respondents

PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under Sections 397 r/w.401
Cr.P.C., to call for the records pertaining to proceedings in
Na.Ka.Aa/1/1456/2023, dated 17.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent to
set aside the same by allowing this revision petition.

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji.

For Respondents : Mr.R. Vinoth Raja,
Govt.Advocate (crl.side)

ORDER

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1183 of 2023

Challenging the order dated 17.05.2023 passed by the 1st respondent

in Na.Ka.Aa/1/1456/2023, this Criminal Revision is filed by the

petitioner.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1st

respondent, in pursuance of the complaint given by 2nd respondent,

initiated proceedings against the petitioner and made him to execute a

bond on 11.05.2023 under section 110 of Cr.P.C., for maintaining good

behaviour for a period two years from the date of execution of bond.

Subsequently, a case has been registered against the petitioner on

13.05.2023 in Cr.No. 207 of 2023 for the offence under sections 147,

294(b), 506(ii) IPC. Since the petitioner violated the bond condition,

based on a complaint given by the 2nd respondent, the 1st respondent,

proceeded against the petitioner under section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and

remanded the petitioner to prison by his proceedings in

Na.Ka.Aa/1/1456/2023, dated 17.05.2023 to undergo imprisonment until

the expiry of the period of bond viz., 11.05.2025.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1183 of 2023

3. He further submitted that in view of the judgment of the Division

Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch

cases [P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar Vs State Rep by The Inspector of

Police, Law and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai], the

impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is unsustainable, Therefore,

he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the

respondents fairly conceded that the 1st respondent is not competent

authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

5.I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of the

learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

6.On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals that

the 1st respondent in pursuance of the report given by the 2nd respondent-

Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station, Ranipet District,

initiated proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C., against the petitioner

and directed to him to execute a bond for keeping good behaviour under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1183 of 2023

section 110 of Cr.P.C., pursuant to which, on 11.05.2023, he executed a

bond for keeping good behaviour for a period of two years from the date

of execution of bond i.e.,11.05.2023. Since the petitioner has violated the

bond executed before the Executive Magistrate, the 1st respondent

proceeded against him under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C and finally

remanded him to undergo imprisonment for the remaining period of the

bond till 11.05.2025.

7. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 13.03.2023 passed by

the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of

2018 batch cases [P.Sathish @ Sathis Kumar Vs State Rep by The

Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4 Korukkupet Police Station,

Chennai], wherein, this Court relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71 [Gulam Abbas Vs State of

Uttar Pradesh]. In paragraph 80 (e) of the said order dated 13.03.2023, it

has been held as follows:-

“80 (e) In the light of the law laid down in paragraph 24 of the three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 71, an Executive Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.R.C.No.1183 of 2023

Section 123(1)(b) for violation of a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. A person who has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate under the said provision will have to be challenged or prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C”