Allowed

Rahul Raj @ Unni v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC16 Mar 2021Crl.MC/1354/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal miscellaneous petition and quashed an order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. requiring bond for keeping peace. The court held that the order lacked supporting material and justification for Section 107 Cr.P.C., noting that the Public Prosecutor's contentions were not recorded, warranting a curtailment of liberty without valid basis.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure A1 order quashed; fresh initiation permitted in future if warranted.

Rahul Raj @ Unni Vs State of Kerala — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 / 25TH PHALGUNA, 1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.1354 OF 2021(H)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN MC 88/2020 OF SUB DIVL. MAGISTRATE, CHENGANNUR

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

RAHUL RAJ @ UNNI AGED 25 YEARS S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, NEDIYYATHU PADEETTATHIL HOUSE, KUNNAM MURI, THAZHAKKKARA VILLAGE, ALLEPPEY DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV. SRI.M.J.SANTHOSH

¶10

RESPONDENT/S:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MAVALIKKARA POLICE STATION, THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶12

OTHER PRESENT:

¶13

PP T.R.RENJITH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16.03.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

Crl.MC.No.1354 OF 2021(H)

¶16

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

Dated this the 16^th day of March, 2021

¶19

The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A1 order issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C requiring the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be called upon to execute bond for keeping peace and good behavior for a period of one year. The challenge against Annexure A1 is on the premise that the order has been passed without any supporting material and the reasons mentioned in the order do not justify initiation of proceedings under Section 111. It is contended that in Crime No. 255 of 2020 of the Mavelikkara Police Station, was registered against the petitioner, way back in January 2020 and there is no report of the petitioner having involved in any criminal activity thereafter. Attention is drawn to the decision of this Court in Santhosh V. State Of Kerala [2014(3) KLT 837] , wherein it was held that for justifying an action under Section 107 Cr.P.C, the breach of peace must be imminent and the information about such conduct or wrongful act must not be far removed or isolated.

¶20

According to the learned Public Prosecutor, even though the petitioner is involved in only one crime, accused nos 4 and 5 in that crime are hardened criminals and hence, Section 107 proceedings is

¶21

Crl.MC.No.1354 OF 2021(H)

¶22

¶23

initiated against all the accused in Crime No. 255 of 2017, so as to ensure peace in the area.

¶24

3.Having heard the Counsel on either side, I find more merit in the contention urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. An order under Section 107 Cr.P.C would result in curtailment of an individual's liberty and will be a rear to his reputation. Going by Annexure A1, except the involvement of the petitioner in one crime, nothing further has been stated. The submissions made by the learned Public Prosecutor are not stated in the impugned order. Hence I find it impossible to sustain the proceedings initiated vide Annexure A1.

¶25

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 order is quashed , leaving it open for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner, if so warranted in future.

¶26

Sd/V.G ARUN JUDGE

¶27

¶28

Crl.MC.No.1354 OF 2021(H)

¶29

¶30

APPENDIX

¶31

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶32

ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN M.C.NO.88/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHENGANNUR, DATED 25.2.2021. ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO.248/2020 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION. ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF CRIME NO.255/2020 OF MAVELIKKARA POLICE STATION.

Rahul Raj @ Unni v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Raj @ Unni 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

Asif Aslam Vs State of Kerala

Siddique C.A. @ Aboobacker Siddique Vs State of Kerala

Shibu Vs State of Kerala

Rmp Info Tec Pvt. Ltd. Company, Vs State of Kerala

Shivakumar, Vs State of Kerala

Sanesh Vs State of Kerala