Madras High Court
Satheeshkumar vs The Second Class Executive Magistrate ... on 12 February, 2025
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
Satheeshkumar .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Second Class Executive Magistrate Cum
The Tahsildhar
Ramanathapuram Taluk
Ramanathapuram District
2. The Inspector of Police
Ramanathapuram Town Police Station
Ramanathapuram District .. Respondents
PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS,
to call for the records pertaining to the proceedings in M.C.No.A3/
477/6250/2024 dated 07.10.2024 on the file of the first respondent and
quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Mahendrarajan
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar
Government Advocate(Crl.Side)
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in M.C.No.A3/ 477/6250/2024 dated 07.10.2024 on the file of
the first respondent .
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit
that the petitioner received summons under Section 113 of Cr.P.C., dated
07.10.2024 from the first respondent directing him to appear for enquiry
on 15.10.2024 against the report filed by the police that he is likely to
commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity. The said report
was filed against him with malafide intention and the petitioner is not a
habitual offender and there is no any previous antecedents against the
petitioner. The petitioner is not involved in any illegal activities. Further
the impugned order under Section 113 of Cr.P.C and its proceedings
against the petitioner is nullity and without any jurisdiction as substance
of information as received is incomplete and ambiguous. Therefore there is
failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 111 of
Cr.PC., therefore the notice issued by the first respondent is liable to be
quashed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
3. The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the
first respondent would submit that the first respondent issued summons
under Sections 113 of Cr.P.C., for keeping peace based on the information
given by the Ramanathapuram Town Police Station. Therefore the first
respondent issued notice to the petitioner to maintain peace and to execute
bond, therefore the order passed by the first respondent is in accordance
with law and there is no any illegality, hence the present petition is liable
to be dismissed.
4. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.
5. The petitioner has challenged the summons issued by the first
respondent under Section 113 of Cr.P.C., In the summons there is no
substance of information received. As per Section 113 of Cr.P.C if such
person is not present in Court, the Magistrate shall issue summons
requiring him to appear, or, when such person is in custody, a warrant,
directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him before the Court.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the
following judgements:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
a) M.Krishnamurthy and others .vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
cum Revenue Divisionsal Officer, Krishnagiri in Crl.O.P No.17684 of
b)L.Ravikumar .vs. The Inspector of Police, Thirumangalam Town
Police Station Madurai District in Crl.O.P(MD)No. 12717 of 2022.
7. On careful perusal of the above said judgments it is clear that
under Section 111 Cr.P.C, it is self evident that the order is a show cause
notice calling upon the persons stated therein to show case as to why they
should not be bound over. Order under Section 111 Cr.P.C.,merely
mandates the Executive Magistrate to give the substance of information
that had led him to form an opinion to initiate proceedings under Section
107 of Cr.P.C., The section also does not contemplate that the Magistrate
should record his opinion or give reasons for initiating proceedings. This
is so because Section 107r/w.111 is not the be all and end all of the
proceedings. The substance means the essence of the most important parts
of the information but in the case on hand no substance mentioned in the
summons.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
8. On perusal of the impugned summon it is seen that it does not
contain any basic ingredients as required under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. At
this juncture, it is relevant to extract the provisions under Section 111 of
Cr.P.C, which reads as follows:
“111. Order to be made
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”
9. The first respondent ought to have passed the impugned order
containing the substance of information received, the amount of bond to
be executed, the terms for which it is to be in force and the number,
character and class of sureties which it is to be in force. In this case, on
receipt of information from the second respondent, the first respondent
mechanically issued the impugned summons without application of mind
and it is totally contrary under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.,that too without any
particulars and simply in two lines the order has been passed to appear
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
before him, therefore the order passed by the first respondent is liable to be
quashed. More over the order was passed on 07.10.2024, but summons
under Section 113 was without mentioning the act. The respondent ought
to have issued summons under the BNSS, since it came into force on
01.07.2024 therefore the first respondent has not applied his mind and
simply issued summons.
10. Accordingly the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed and
the order passed by the first respondent in M.C.No.A3/ 477/6250/2024
dated 07.10.2024 is hereby quashed.
12.02.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
aav
To
1. The Second Class Executive Magistrate Cum
The Tahsildhar
Ramanathapuram Taluk
Ramanathapuram District
2. The Inspector of Police
Ramanathapuram Town Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
P.DHANABAL,J.
aav
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.19558 of 2024
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/03/2025 03:24:11 pm )
