Allowed

Parthiban v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum

Madras HC17 Mar 2023CRL RC/337/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Revision challenged an order remanding the petitioner for violating a bond executed before an Executive Magistrate under Section 107 Cr.P.C. relying on Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.. The court held that an Executive Magistrate lacks jurisdiction to impose such punishment and set aside the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. was set aside and the Criminal Revision Case was allowed.

Parthiban Vs the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 17.03.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM

¶6

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023

¶7

and Crl.M.P.No.2701 of 2023

Parthiban

... Petitioner

/vs/

The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District.

¶12

The Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Thiruttani Police Station, Thiruvallur District

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Prayer : Criminal Revision Case filed under section 397(1) r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to set aside the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent in M.C.No.44 of 2021 in Na.Ka.No.3361/2022/A1 by Sub-Div.Mag cum R.D.O/Thiruttani/2022.

¶15

For petitioner ... Mr.G.P.Sivakumar

¶16

For Respondents ... Mr.R.Vinothraja, Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

1/5

¶19

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging the order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the 1^st respondent in M.C.No.44 of 2021 in Na.Ka.No.3361/2022/A1, this Criminal Revision is

¶22

filed by the petitioner.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 1^st respondent passed an order, by her proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3361/2022/A1 dated 20.09.2022 under Section 122(1) of Cr.P.C and after enquiry, passed an

¶24

order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and remanded the petitioner till 17.03.2023. This impugned order is unsustainable, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases . Therefore, he seeks to set aside the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶25

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents fairly conceded that the 1^st respondent is not competent authority to pass an order under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

¶26

4.I have considered the matter in the light of submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

¶27

2/5

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023

¶30

1 st

¶31

5.On perusal of the records and the impugned order, it reveals that the

¶32

1^st respondent in pursuance of the complaint given by the 2^nd respondent, Inspector of Police, Thiruthani Police Station, Thiruvallur District proceeded the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 110 Cr.P.C and directed to execute the bond with two sureties. Since the petitioner has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate, the 1^st respondent proceeded by him further under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C and finally ordered to remand him till 17.03.2023. The impugned order passed by the 1st respondent dated 20.09.2022 in M.C.No.44 of 2021 in Na.Ka.No.3361/2022/A1 is unsustainable, in view of the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 13.03.2023 in Cr.R.C.No.137 of 2018 batch cases , wherein, this Court relied on the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1982) 1 SCC 71

¶33

[ Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh]. In paragraph 80 (e) of the said order dated 13.03.2023, it has been held as follows:-

¶34

“80 (e) In the light of the law laid down in paragraph 24 of the three judge bench decision of the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1982) 1 SCC 71, an Executive Magistrate cannot authorize imprisonment under Section 123(1)(b) for violation of a bond under Section 107 Cr.P.C. A person who has violated the bond executed before the Executive Magistrate

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

3/5

¶37

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023

¶38

under the said provision will have to be challenged or prosecuted before the Judicial Magistrate for inquiry and punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C”

¶39

5.In the light of the above, the 1^st respondent is not competent authority to impose any punishment under Section 122(1)(b)Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside and the Criminal Revision Case is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶40

17.03.2023

¶41

srn

¶42

Note : Issue order copy on 20.03.2023.

¶43

¶44

1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Thiruttani, Thiruvallur District.

¶45

2.The Inspector of Police (Law and Order) Thiruttani Police Station, Thiruvallur District

¶46

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶47

4/5

¶48

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023

¶49

V.SIVAGNANAM, J.

¶50

srn

¶51

Crl.R.C.No.337 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.No.2701 of 2023

¶52

17.03.2023

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

5/5

Parthiban v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parthiban v. the Sub Divisional Magistrate Cum

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

C.Rajamannar Vs Dayanithi

Joseph L.C. Vs Inspector of Police

K.Yethendra Patluri Vs Inspector of Police

M/S.Zinka Logistics Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Inspector of Police

G.Manoharan Vs State Rep.by

B.Dharmalingam Vs a.Jenine