M.Raghu @ Mettur Raghu v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.03.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR and Crl.M.P.No.16327 of 2023 M.Raghu @ Mettur Raghu ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State rep. by The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Salem District.
2.The Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Salem District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 397 r/w. 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records culminating in M.C.No.159 of 2023 in Na.Ka.2946/2023/D on the file of the learned Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Magistrate, Mettur vide order dated 18.08.2023 and set aside the same.
Page No.1 of 8
For Petitioner : Mr.Sanjay N.Gandhi For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
ORDER
Challenging the order passed by the second respondent under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. in M.C.No.159 of 2023 in Na.Ka.2946/2023/D dated 18.08.2023, the present revision petition is filed. 2.The grounds assailed by the petitioner is that the order passed by the second respondent is erroneous, not maintainable in law and against the settled position of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Gulam Abbas vs. state of Uttar Pradesh reported in [1982] 1 SCC 71 and he also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Devi vs. Executive Magistrate reported in [2020] 6 CTC 157. The learned counsel further referred to the order of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.Sathish @ Sathish Kumar vs. The Inspector of Police, Law and Order, H-4 Page No.2 of 8
Korukkupet Police Station, Chennai and another in Crl.RC.No.137 of 2018 batch dated 13.03.2023 and submitted that the Executive Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.c. for violation of a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and a person who has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate under the said provision will have to be challaned or prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Following the order of the Division Bench, the learned Single Judge of this Court has set aside the proceedings of the Executive Magistrate in Crl.RC.No.268 of 2023 dated 20.06.2023 [Kozhi Raja @ Raja vs. The Executive Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner of Police, North, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore].
Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order passed by the Executive Magistrate. 3.The Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender who was causing disturbance to the public and also to the traffic. Hence, proceedings has been initiated under Section 110 Cr.P.C., he was produced before the second respondent on the same day and the second respondent obtained a Page No.
bond from the petitioner for good behaviour for one year. Thereafter, on 19.06.2023 the petitioner along with other accused, namely, Sheik, Anand and Balaji murdered one Kaliammal @ Lakshmi, who is the concubine of the petitioner and fled away. On the complaint given by the younger sister of the said Kaliammal @ Lakshmi, a case in Crime No.187 of 2023 for the offence under Section 302 IPC was registered against the petitioner and other accused persons. Thereafter, the petitioner was arrested, remanded to judicial custody and produced before the second respondent. Since the petitioner has violated the condition, enquiry conducted by the second respondent and an order was passed by the second respondent under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. keeping the petitioner under confinement till 04.06.2024. 4.He further submitted that Special Leave Petition was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order of the Division Bench in Crl.RC.No.137 of 2018 batch in Crl.A.No.682 of 2024 [SLP(Crl.) No.012075/2023. The SLP was admitted and notice ordered, but no stay granted.
Page No.4 of 8
5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.RC.No.137 of 2018 batch dated 13.03.2023, in paragraph No.88(e) has held as follows:
88.(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 v State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 71, an Executive Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 122(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 challaned or prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
6.It is seen that the second respondent directed the petitioner to be in confinement till 04.06.2024. In any event, in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in Crl.RC.No.137 of 2018 batch dated Page No.5 of 8
13.03.2023, the second respondent cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C for violation of bond under Section 110 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, this Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the impugned order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the second respondent in M.C.No.159 of 2023 in Na.Ka.2946/2023/D is set aside. The petitioner is directed to be released forthwith, if he is not required in any other case. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
01.03.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order cse Page No.6 of 8
To 1.The Inspector of Police, Mettur Police Station, Salem District.
2.The Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, Salem District.
3.The Superintendent, District Prison, Attur, Salem District.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page No.7 of 8
M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
cse 01.03.2024 Page No.8 of 8