Allowed

Manoj Lazar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC9 Aug 2016Crl.MC/2411/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging an order under Section 107 of the CrPC. The court held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate failed to disclose grounds or record a satisfaction that the petitioner was likely to disturb peace, violating Section 111 mandates. Consequently, the preventive proceeding was quashed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceeding under Section 107 CrPC initiated through M.C.No.95 of 2016 quashed.

Manoj Lazar Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST 2016/18TH SRAVANA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 2411 of 2016 ()

¶6

MC.NO. 95/2016 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

MANOJ LAZAR, AGED 35, S/O.LAZAR, TCRA-50, PUNNATHAL CHERRY, KOLLAM WEST.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.ARUN BABU

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & PETITIONER:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI-31.

¶12

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, COLLECTORATE, KOLLAM-13.

¶13

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALLITHOTTAM POLICE STATION, KOLLAM. PIN-691 013.

¶14

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.AMJAD ALI

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-08-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

sts

¶17

Crl.MC.No. 2411 of 2016 ()

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:

¶20

ANNEX A1 THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 21.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶21

ANNEX A2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 28.01.2016 IN CRL.M.P.194/2016 OF THE SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLLAM.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES:

NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.S.TO JUDGE

sts

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

----------------------------------------

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.2411 of 2016

¶30

-----------------------------------------

¶31

Dated this the 9^th day of August, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.The petitioner is proceeded under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' for brevity) by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam on a report filed by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallithottam Police Station. By Annexure-A1 order, the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the said officer in person at 11.00 a.m. on 18.4.2016 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.20,000/- with two sureties for the like amount for keeping peace for a term of one year.

¶34

2.Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶35

3.It is submitted by the learned counsel that the proceedings have been initiated on the basis of a solitary

¶36

Crl.M.C.2411/2016 2

¶37

crime, and that too, one registered for the purpose by the Sub Inspector, Pallithottam Police Station under section 107 of the Code. The order is also silent as regards the relevant factors which influenced the mind of the Magistrate to form an opinion that the petitioner is likely to disturb peace and tranquility in a particular locality and in order to prevent the same, it is necessary to take preventive action against him. It is urged that the materials before the learned Magistrate was thoroughly inadequate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. Finally it is contended that the order falls short of the mandatory requirements under Section 111 of the Code. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KHC 139 : 1982 KLT 578] and the decision of the learned Single Judges in Peethambaran v. State of Kerala [1980 KHC 239 :1980 KLT 876 : ILR 1980 (2) Ker. 589], Santhosh M.V. and Others V State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLD 519] and Bejoy K.V. V State of

¶38

Crl.M.C.2411/2016 3

¶39

Kerala [2015 (2) KLD 889].

¶40

4.The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that it was based on the report made by the Sub Inspector of Police, Pallithottam Police Station that the petitioner is of an aggressive nature and committing crimes repeatedly. It was on the basis of the fact that the petitioner is likely to indulge in further criminal acts causing breach of peace and public tranquility in the area that preventive action was initiated.

¶41

5.I have perused the materials on record as well.

¶42

6.Under Section 107 of Code, whenever a Magistrate is informed that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace, he may require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year. This has to be done in the manner provided in Section 111. That Section requires a Magistrate to make an order in writing, setting forth the

¶43

Crl.M.C.2411/2016 4

¶44

substance of the information received. The sine qua non for the institution of a proceeding under the Section is that the Magistrate shall be of the opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. The Magistrate, has, under the law, to satisfy himself that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility before taking action. For that purpose, the Magistrate before issuing notice under 111 must record the grounds, which, in his opinion as sufficient for proceeding further.

¶45

7.In Madhu Limaye and Another v. SDM, Monghyr [AIR

¶46

1971 SC 2486] the Apex Court, in para 36 of the judgment, had cautioned the Executive Magistrate exercising powers under Section 107 in the following manner:-

¶47

"We have seen the provisions of Sec. 107. That section says that action is to be taken in the manner here-in-after provided and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate in such

¶48

Crl.M.C.2411/2016

¶49

¶50

a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not according to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to emphasize the safeguards built into the procedure because from there will arise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of general public."

¶51

It was further observed in Para 37 as under:-

¶52

"Since the person to be proceeded against, has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands. Although the section speaks of the ''substance' of the information, it does not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the information but it must give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation of the jurisdiction

¶53

Crl.M.C.2411/2016

¶54

¶55

and the word ''substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information."

¶56

8.On perusing Annexure-A1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in a single crime could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order. In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure , to make an order under the section. (see Moidu v. State of

¶57

Crl.M.C.2411/2016 7

¶58

Kerala [1982 KLT 578]. It is also not open to the Magistrate to draw up proceedings against persons under Section 107 based on vague hunches or general statements. Annexure-A1 order does not state in what way or with reference to what matter the petitioner was likely to commit a breach or peace. There was no tangible evidence before the learned Magistrate that some definite Act is contemplated, which Act, if committed, is likely to cause breach of peace. Annexure-A1 order does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and reveals total non application of mind.

¶59

9.The learned Magistrate ought to have borne in mind that the object of the Section is prevention and not punishment of crimes. It is not intended to punish persons for anything that they have done in the past, but to prevent them from doing in future something that might occasion a breach of the peace. The section is designed to enable the Magistrate to take measures with a view to prevent

¶60

Crl.M.C.2411/2016 8

¶61

commission of offences involving breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility. Wide powers have been conferred on the magistrates specified in this section and as the matter affects the liberty of the subject who has not been found guilty of an offence, it is essential that the power should be exercised strictly in accordance with law.

¶62

10.I am unable to sustain Annexure-A1 order for the reasons detailed above.

¶63

The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as M.C.No.95 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kollam, will stand quashed.

¶64

Sd/RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶65

vps

Manoj Lazar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Lazar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dinesh Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Sumaraj Vs State of Kerala

Jeevan Jayaprakash Vs Sub Inspector of Police

Ubaid Rahman Vs State of Kerala

Vani @ Kalaivani Vs State of Kerala

Ismayil Vs the Sub Inspector of Police