Quashed

Teddy George v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC12 Sept 2018Crl.MC/1521/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous case, the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, held that the Sub Divisional Magistrate could not proceed under Section 107 Cr.P.C. solely because the petitioner was involved in one criminal case. The court found the insufficiency of facts to warrant initiating proceedings and quashed the lower order.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous Case was allowed and the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. in M.C. No. 76 of 2017 were quashed.

Teddy George Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 21ST BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1521 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER IN MC 76/2017 of SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,PALA

¶7

CRIME NO. 2498/2017 OF Pala Police Station , Kottayam

¶8

PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:

¶9

TEDDY GEORGE S/O. GEORGE, PAREL HOUSE, PULIYANNOOR, PALA (P.O.), KOTTAYAM DT.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.T.K.AJITH KUMAR

¶11

RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PALA POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM DT., PIN-686575, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶13

2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE MINI CIVIL STATION, PALA (P.O.), KOTTAYAM DT. PIN-686575.

¶14

SRI.B.JAYASURYA SR.PP.

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Crl.M.C. 1521/18

-:2:-

ORDER

The petitioner is the respondent in M.C. No.76 of 2017 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pala which was registered under Section 107 Cr.P.C. He was issued Annexure-A3 order directing him to show cause why he should not be required to execute a bond for Rs.25,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like sum to keep peace for one year. This is sought to be quashed in this Crl.M.C. on the ground that the facts of the case are not sufficient to initiate the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶21

It is on the basis of a report received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Pala, the Sub Divisional Magistrate registered the case. It is seen from Annexure-A3 order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate that the police reported to him that the petitioner was repeatedly doing wrongful activities leading to breach of peace and public tranquility in and around Pala. The petitioner has been involved in Crime No.2498 of 2017 registered for the

¶22

Crl.M.C. 1521/18

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

offences under Sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 323, 324 and 427 read with Section 149 IPC. No other case is mentioned in Annexure-A3 order. Merely because he has been involved in one criminal case he cannot be proceeded against under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The proceedings are liable to be quashed.

¶25

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. The proceedings in M.C. No.76 of 2017 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Pala are quashed.

¶26

Sd/-

¶27

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶28

vps 14/9

¶29

APPENDIX

¶30

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶31

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 3761 OF 2017 OF PALA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 2498 OF 2017 OF PALA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER U/S. 111 OF CR.P.C. IN M.C. 76/2017 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED NIL OF FEBRUARY 2018.

¶32

-:4:-

¶33

Crl.M.C. 1521/18

¶34

ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUMMONS DATED NIL OF FEBRUARY 2018 IN M.C. 76/2017.

¶35

RESPONDENT'S/S' EXHIBITS:

¶36

NIL

¶37

/TRUE COPY/

¶38

VPS PS TO JUDGE

Teddy George v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teddy George 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palanivelu Vs State of Kerala

Ajmal Vs State of Kerala

Rahul Vs State of Kerala

Jerin James Vs State of Kerala

Jose Varghese Vs State of Kerala

C.P.Sahadevan Vs State of Kerala