Allowed

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Nov 2016Crl.MC/6712/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala allowed a criminal miscellaneous petition challenging a preliminary order under Sections 107 and 111 CrPC. The Court quashed the order due to total non-application of mind, absence of evidence regarding likelihood of breach of peace, and lack of specific materials justifying the preventive measure.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-1 order dated 22-04-2016 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam under Sections 107 and 111 CrPC is quashed. All further proceedings pending on M.C.No.893 of 2016 are quashed.

Satheesh Vs State of Kerala — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V

¶4

MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2016/23RD KARTHIKA, 1938

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 6712 of 2016

¶6

MC 893/2016 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM DATED 22-04-2016 CRIME NO. 725/2016 OF ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION , KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

SATHEESH, AGED 29 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN PILLAI, SATHEESH BHAVANAM, INCHAVILA CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.PRATHEESH.P

¶10

SMT.S.SEETHA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE:

¶12

1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM-682031.

¶13

2. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM-691013.

¶14

3. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ANCHALUMMOODU POLICE STATION, KOLLAM-691006.

¶15

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.T.R.RENJITH

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14-11-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

¶18

Crl.MC.No. 6712 of 2016

¶19

APPENDIX

¶20

PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES

¶21

ANNEXURE-1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN MC.893/16 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE DATED 22/4/16.

¶22

RESPONDENT(S)' ANNEXURES

NIL.

/ TRUE COPY /

P.S. TO JUDGE

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V, J

¶28

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

¶29

Crl.M.C. No.6712 of 2016

¶30

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

¶31

Dated this the 14^th day of November, 2016

¶32

O R D E R

¶33

1.In this petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner challenges Annexure-1 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam. By the aforesaid order , the petitioner has been called upon to appear before the said officer in person at 11.00 a.m. on 23.5.2016 and to show cause why he should not be required to enter into a bond of Rs.20,000/with two solvent 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.The learned counsel would assail the order on various grounds. It is submitted that the substance of accusation

¶36

Crl.M.C.6712/2016

¶37

¶38

has not been stated in Annexure-1 order. The notice reveals total non-application of mind as the only crime made mention of in Annexure-1 is the one registered by the police under Section 107 of the Code. It is urged that the materials before the learned Magistrate was thoroughly inadequate to arrive at the requisite satisfaction. There was no indication of the likelihood of any breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility in the near future. Finally, it is contended that the preliminary order under Section 107 did not meet the requirement of Section 111 of the Code. Reliance was 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 Kerala [2015 (2) KLD 889].

¶39

Crl.M.C.6712/2016

¶40

¶41

4.Heard the learned Public prosecutor as well and have perused the materials on record.

¶42

5.On perusing Annexure-1 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 criminal acts could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. The reasons which persuaded 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 recognizances, and on his failure, to make an order under the section. (see Moidu v. State of 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-1 order

¶43

Crl.M.C.6712/2016

¶44

¶45

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-1 order does not fulfill the requirement under Section 111 and reveals total non application of mind.

¶46

6.As such, in view of such blatant abuse of the powers under Sections 107 and 111 Cr. P.C., it is only just and proper, to secure the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of powers of the Court that Annexure-1 order be quashed.

¶47

The petition is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner now pending as M.C.No.893 of 2016 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kollam, are quashed. SD/-

¶48

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN.V. JUDGE

¶49

vps

Satheesh v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh 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

Salim Vs State of Kerala

Sameer Babu Vs State of Kerala

Hassan Haji Vs State of Kerala

Babu Vs State of Kerala

Rakesh Vs the Sub Inspector of Police, Karamana

Hashim Vs State of Kerala