← Library
Madras High CourtCRL OP(MD)/17630/2021allowed

Thirumalai v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer

2021-11-15Honourable Mr Justice G.R.Swaminathan2 pages

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17630 of 2021 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 15.11.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN Crl.O.P(MD)No.17630 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9594 of 2021 Thirumalai ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kariyapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District.

(LIR No.01/21) ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records pertaining to impugned order passed by the first respondent under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., dated 04.10.2021 and quash the same.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ramasamy For R1 & R2 : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel on either side.

2. What is under challenge in this petition is notice issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. by the first respondent.

3. I went through the contents of the impugned notice. Section 111 of Cr.P.C., states that where the executive magistrate deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under Section 110 of Cr.P.C., he shall make an order in writing after setting forth the substance of the information received by him. Few other requirements are also set out in Section 111 of Cr.P.C. In this case, the subjective satisfaction of the executive magistrate has not been set out in the impugned notice. The substance of the information has also not been set out. Therefore, on these twin grounds, the impugned notice is liable to be quashed. In fact, this issue is no longer res integra. It is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 1/2

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17630 of 2021 squarely covered by the decision reported in 2016-2-L.W.(Crl.)470 (Jegan @ Billa Jegan Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate and Sub Collector, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District) and 2017-1-L.W. (Crl.)149 (M.Krishnamurthy & others Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri).

4. The petitioner appears to be a history sheeted rowdy and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor wants this Court to take note of the bad antecedents of the petitioner. I am not able to accept the aforesaid contention.

The antecedents of the petitioner are not quite relevant when the notice is not in consonance with the statutory scheme set out under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. I am constrained to quash the same even though the petitioner may have bad antecedents. The impugned notice is accordingly quashed. This Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // / /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) rmi Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned. To 1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Aruppukottai, Virudhunagar District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kariyapatti Police Station, Virudhunagar District. 3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Crl.O.P(MD)No.17630 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.9594 of 2021 15.11.2021 AR(CO) SB(29.11.2021) 2P 4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2/2