Allowed

Chellapandian v. The Inspector of Police

Madras HC18 Feb 2021CRL OP(MD)/2561/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed a criminal original petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash a show cause notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C. passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate for failing to state necessary facts as required by Section 111 Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. dated 30.09.2020 and allowed the criminal original petition.

Chellapandian Vs The Inspector of Police — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2561 of 2021

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 18.02.2021

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mrs. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2561 of 2021 and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.1333 & 1334 of 2021

¶6

Chellapandian

¶7

... Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Inspector of Police, Perunali Police Station, Ramanathapuram District.

¶9

2.The Revenue Divisional Officer/

¶10

Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Proceedings M.C.No.177 of 2020, dated 30.09.2020 on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Muniyandi For Respondents : Mr.A.Robinson G overnment Advocate (Criminal Side)

¶13

ORDER

¶14

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to call for the records in Proceedings M.C.No.177 of 2020, dated 30.09.2020, on the file of the second respondent and quash the same.

¶15

2.The primordial submission of the petitioner is that the impugned proceedings, dated 30.09.2020, under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, issued by the second respondent against the petitioner is illegal and un-sustainable, as it does not state the facts leading to the issuance of the said proceedings.

¶16

3.Mr.S.Muniyandi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in M.Krishnamurthy Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri and another, reported in 2017 (1) CTC 680, in which, it has been held thus :

¶17

In our view, a show cause order under Section 107 r/w 111 can be subjected to judicial review under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if on the face of it, the order does not satisfy the minimum requirements of Section 111 or that the same has been passed by a person who is not

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

1/3

¶20

Crl.O.P.(MD)No.2561 of 2021

¶21

an Executive Magistrate and not otherwise. In other words, if the order does not contain 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, only then, can the High Court interfere and not otherwise. Factual adjudication of the satisfaction expressed by the Magistrate is ruled out in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vicco Laboratories (supra)."

¶22

4.Mr.A.Robinson, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side), who accepts notice on behalf of the respondents, fairly conceded that the summons issued to the accused persons by the Executive Magistrate is not in inconsonance with the provisions laid down under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶23

5.Considering the submissions made on either side, the impugned orders passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Paramakudi, is hereby set aside.

¶24

6.Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.

¶25

Sd/-

¶26

Assistant Registrar (T&P)

¶27

// True Copy //

¶28

/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶29

Note In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

¶30

¶31