Madras High Court
Sharukan vs The Administrative Executive ... on 29 March, 2023
Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
CRL.R.C.NO.594 OF 2023
AND CRL.M.P.NO.4392 OF 2023
Sharukan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Administrative Executive Magistrate /
Deputy Commissioner of Police (South)
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
2.State Rep. By
Inspector of Police
D3, Pothanoor Police Station
Coimbatore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397 r/w 401 of
Criminal Procedure Code to set aside and revise the order dated
14.01.2023 passed by the 1st respondent / Administrative Executive
Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, South, Coimbatore in
M.P.No.02 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.17/Nir.Se.Nadu/Kaa.thu.AA(South)
Co.Ma/2023 pursuant to the Crime No.696/2022 under Section 392 IPC
dated 13.11.2022 and Crime No.697/2018 under Sections 342, 392, 397,
506(II) IPC dated 14.11.2022 on the file of D3 Pothanoor Police Station,
Coimbatore District.
For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Chinnaraj
For Respondents ... Mr.R.Vinothraja
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2023
ORDER
Challenging the order dated 14.01.2023 passed by the first
respondent under Section 122 (1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Code in
M.P.No.02 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.17/Nir.Se.Nadu/Kaa.thu.AA(South)
Co.Ma/2023 pursuant to the Crime No.696/2022 under Section 392 IPC
dated 13.11.2022 and Crime No.697/2018 under Sections 342, 392, 397,
506(II) IPC dated 14.11.2022, on the file of D3 Pothanoor Police Station,
Coimbatore District, this Criminal Revision is filed by the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the
first respondent passed an order dated 14.01.2023 in M.P.No.02 of 2023 in
Na.Ka.No.17/Nir.Se.Nadu/Kaa.thu.AA(South) Co.Ma/2023, under Section
122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, pursuant to Crime No.696/2022 under Section 392 IPC
dated 13.11.2022 and Crime No.697/2018 under Sections 342, 392, 397,
506(II) IPC dated 14.11.2022 on the file of the second respondent police
and remanded the petitioner till 14.10.2023. This impugned order is
unsustainable, in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in
P.SATHISH @ SATHISH KUMAR AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE
REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE AND OTHERS [CRL.R.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2023
NO.137 OF 2018 AND ETC., BATCH CASES, DECIDED ON
13.03.2023]. Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed
by the first respondent.
3.The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side)
appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the first respondent is
not the competent authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b)
Cr.P.C.
4.I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of
the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
5.On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals
that the first respondent in pursuance of the complaint given by the second
respondent, Inspector of Police, D3 Pothanoor Police Station, Coimbatore
District, has proceeded to initiate proceedings against the petitioner under
Section 110 Cr.P.C and directed to execute the bond with two sureties.
Since the petitioner has violated the bond executed before the Executive
Magistrate, the first respondent proceeded against him further under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2023
Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and finally ordered to remand him till
14.10.2023. The impugned order dated 14.01.2023 passed by the first
respondent in M.P.No.02 of 2023 in Na.Ka.No.17/Nir.Se.Nadu/Kaa.thu.
AA(South) Co.Ma/2023, under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C, is unsustainable,
in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in P.SATHISH @
SATHISH KUMAR CASE (cited supra) wherein, in paragraph 80 (e), this
Court, relied on a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in GULAM
ABBAS VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH] [1982) 1 SCC 71] has 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
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”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2023
6.In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered
view that the first respondent is not the competent authority to impose any
punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order
passed by the first respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case
is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
29.03.2023
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking / Non-speaking order
Note : Issue order copy on 31.03.2023.
TK
To
1.The Administrative Executive Magistrate /
Deputy Commissioner of Police (South)
Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
2.The Inspector of Police
D3, Pothanoor Police Station
Coimbatore District.
3.The Superintendent
Central Prison, Coimbatore.
4.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai – 600 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.594 of 2023
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
TK
CRL.R.C.NO.594 OF 2023
AND CRL.M.P.NO.4392 OF 2023
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
