Rajesh v. State Of Kerala
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2015/5TH CHAITHRA, 1937 Crl.MC.No. 2798 of 2013 () --------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 146/2013 of SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY DATED 18-06-2013 PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS:
--------------------------
1. RAJESH.P.V., AGED 29 YEARS S/O. KESAVAN, PUTHIYA VEETTIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM CHUZHALI.P.O.
2. SHYLESH BABU, AGED 37 YEARS S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, PUTHIYAPURAYIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM NEDUVALOOR, CHUZHALI.P.O.
3. PROJOSH, AGED 30 YEARS S/O. T.V.BALAKRISHNAN, THEKKAN RAMATH VEETTIL CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
4. M.DAMODARAN, AGED 36 YEARS D/O.OTHENAN, MOOLAYIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM EDAYANNUR, CHUZHALI.P.O.
5. K.V.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 60 YEARS S/O.KANNAN, VALAPPIIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM EDAYANNUR, CHUZHALI.P.O.
6. NARAYANAN.A.V. AGED 36 YEARS S/O. MUKUNDAN, ARKYATH VEETTIL, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM CHUZHALI.P.O.
7. RAMANKUTTY, AGED 54 YEARS S/O.SANKUNNI NAIR, CHORPPATH HOUSE CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
8. PRAKASHAN, AGED 44 YEARS S/O.BHASKARAN, CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
9. PRAJIL, AGED 23 YEARS S/O.PREMARAJAN, PULIYULLA VALAPPIL HOUSE CHUZHALI AMSOM DESOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
10. PURUSHOTHAMAN AGED 39 YEARS S/O. NARAYANA, KIZHAKKEPURAYIL HOUSE, KULATHOOR CHUZHALI AMSOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
11. PRAMOD.P. AGED 26 YEARS S/O. NARAYANAN, POONHATHU HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM KOLATHOOR DESOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
Contd...2
- 2 - Crl.MC.No. 2798 of 2013
12. DHANESH.P., AGED 27 YEARS S/O.DAMODARAN, PANAMBAYIL HOUSE CHUZHALI AMSOM KOLATHOOR DESOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
13. RAGHAVAN, AGED 62 YEARS S/O. KARIMBAN, KOTTUR VAYAL NEDIYENGA AMSOM, KANNUR DIST.
14. JACOB JOSEPH, AGED 38 YEARS S/O. JOSEPH, VAYALIL HOUSE, NEDIYENGA AMSOM CHEMPANTHOTTY.
15. BALAKRISHNAN.P.V. AGED 55 YEARS S/O. KANNAN, PARAMBAN VEEDU, NEDIYENGA AMSOM P.O. NEDIYENGA.
16. RAJESH.M.P. AGED 28 YEARS S/O. KRISHNAN, CHENICHERI HOUSE, KOTTUR SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O.
17. P.P.PRAKASHAN, AGED 45 YEARS S/O.KORAN, PUTHIYA PURAYIL HOUSE, CHUZHALI AMSOM, KOLATHOOR AMSOM, CHUZHALI P.O.
18. T.R. NARAYANAN AGED 45 YEARS S/O. RAJAPPAN, THAYYIL HOUSE, PAYATTIYAL CHEMPERI.P.O.
19. VALIYA PARAMBATH SURENDRAN AGED 46 YEARS S/O. KUNHAMBU, PNHEN HOUSE, CHEPPARAMBA NEDIYENGA.P.O.
20. SAVARAMAN.T.P. AGED 31 YEARS S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, PADINHARE PURAYIL HOUSE CHUZHALI AMSOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
21. KAMALAKSHAN.K.V. AGED 32 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN, KALIKKOTTU VEETTIL HOUSE CHUZHALI AMSOM, CHUZHALI.P.O.
22. T.N.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, THACHILODIYAN HOUSE, KOTTURVAYAL SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O.
23. PALAKKEL KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 64 YEARS S/O.KUNHIRAMAN, PALAKKEEL HOUSE, KOTTUR SREEKANDAPURAM.P.O.
24. K. JANARDHANAN AGED 57 YEARS S/O. GOVINDAN, KANIYERI HOUSE, BALANKARI CHERIKODE.P.O.
25. PAVITHRAN.K.C. AGED 39 YEARS S/O.T.K.PADMANABHAN, KOLANKADA CHANDROTH HOUSE, IYCHERI, NEDUNGOME.P.O.
Contd...3
- 3 - Crl.MC.No. 2798 of 2013
26. K.V.SUMESH AGED 50 YEARS S/O. KUNHANANDAN, KALLOORI VALAPPIL HOUSE, NEDUVALOOR CHUZHALI.P.O.
27. SHYJU.K. AGED 29 YEARS S/O. BALAN, KUNNIL HOUSE, EDAYANNUR CHUZHALI.P.O, KANNUR DIST.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.NARAYANAN SRI.NICHOLAS JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONER:
--------------------------
1. STATE OF KERALA THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICER SREEKANDAPURAM POLICE STATION REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA ERNAKULAM.
2. THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY-670102.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.JUSTIN JACOB.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26-03-2015, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No. 2798 of 2013 () --------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- ANNEXURE 1 : COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C. NO. 146/2013 DATED 18-6-2013 ISSUED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE THALASSERY. ANNEXURE 2 : COPY OF THE ORDER WHICH IS QUASHED IN GIRISH.P. & OTHER V STATE OF KERALA (2009(4) KLT SN 99) RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- NIL //TRUE COPY// P.A.TO JUDGE ami/
V.K.MOHANAN, J.
------------------------------- ------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of March, 2015.
O R D E R
The petitioners 27 in numbers are counter petitioners in Annexure I proceedings issued under section 111 of Cr.P.C. by the Sub Divisional Magistrate-Thalassery. According to the petitioners, since they belonged to different political parties and opponents to the present ruling Government, they are falsely implicated in the above proceedings without sufficient reasons and materials. So, in the above proceedings instituted under section 482 of Cr.P.C., the prayer is to quash Annexure-1 order issued by the 2nd respondent.
2. Heard Sri.P.Narayanan, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri.Justin Jacob, the learned Public Prosecutor.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that even as per Annexure I order, the only case of the 2nd respondent is that the petitioners are involved in one crime and the 2nd respondent has no case that the petitioners are habitual offenders or involved in several cases of similar in nature. It is also pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the 2nd respondent has miserably failed to disclose the substance of information received by him in exercising the jurisdiction under section 111 of Cr.P.C. The learned counsel has pointed out that this Court by order dated 20.11.2009 in Girish P. and others Vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2009(4) KHC 929) quashed a similar proceedings. On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that in Annexure 1 order, the 2nd respondent has mentioned that the petitioners are continuously involved in criminal activities and thereby disturbing the public tranquility in the locality. So,
according to the learned Public Prosecutor, the proceedings issued by the 2nd respondent as per Annexure 1 is correct and no interference is warranted.
4. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
5. It is now well settled that unless the substance of the information received by the Officer, in exercise of the jurisdiction under sections 111 and 107 of Cr.P.C., is not stated in the order passed under section 107, the order is not sustainable in law and the mere registration of the crime is not a ground to initiate proceedings under section 107 of Cr.P.C. In paragraph 5 of the decision cited supra, it is held that, "S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables an executive Magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, to require such person to show cause why he should not be
ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. S.111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under S.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, 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, the necessity to setforth "the substance of the information" in the order under S.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct.
Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him." In the light of the above decision, it can be seen that in Annexure 1 order, there is no reference to the substance received by the 2nd respondent while invoking section 111 of Cr.P.C. Even in Annexure I order, the facts involved in Crime No.476/12 are also not seen stated. The statement contained in the second page of Annexure 1 order is only an observation of the 2nd respondent and that too not on the basis of any materials received by him, since such materials are absent in Annexure 1 order.
is no allegation that the petitioners are involved in several crimes of same nature to substantiate the apprehension of the 2nd respondent that the petitioners are likely to indulge in criminal activities. Thus going by Annexure 1 order, it can be seen that the 2nd respondent has miserably failed to refer to the substance of the information received by him so as to invoke section 111 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, according to me, Annexure 1 order is not legally sustainable, particularly in the light of the decision cited supra.
In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed quashing Annexure I proceedings in M.C.No.146/13 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate-Thalassery.
Sd/- V.K.MOHANAN, Judge.
ami/ //True copy// P.A.to Judge