Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2025/20TH PHALGUNA, 1946 CRIME NO.218/2024 OF PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 23.07.2024 IN MC NO.434 OF 2024 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,PERINTHALMANNA PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER ABBAS, AGED 55 YEARS, S/O KUNJIMUHAMMED,POTHUKADAN HOUSE, PARIYAPURAM,PUTHANANGADI POST, ANGADIPPURAM,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT PIN - 679321 BY ADV K.B.GANGESH RESPONDENTS/STATE & PETITIONERS
1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031 2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MINI CIVIL STATION, PERINTHALMANNA,MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322 3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PERINTHALMANNA POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 679322 SRI. M.C. ASHI, PP. THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure A2 order
under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna. By the impugned order, petitioner is called upon to show cause why he should not be compelled to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with sureties to keep peace for a period
of one year as provided in Section 107 of Cr.PC. The basis of the order is the report of the Station House Officer, Perinthalmanna Police Station stating that the petitioner is an accused in Crime No.218 of 2024 registered for offences under Sections 323, 324, 326, 308 and 506 r/w 34 of IPC and he is in the habit of creating law and order issues in the locality.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that, mere registration of a crime is not sufficient to curtail a person’s liberty by requiring him to execute a bond for keeping peace. Annexure A2 order is also assailed on the ground that it does not reflect application of mind by the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the factors based on which she had reached the prima facie satisfaction that, unless prevented, petitioner will be a threat to the peace and tranquility in the locality.
3. The learned Public Prosecutor submitted that, apart from the crime, the report also mentioned that the petitioner is in the habit of creating law and
order issues.
4. The law is well settled through a series of
precedents that mere involvement in a crime, by itself, is not sufficient ground for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to exercise power under Section 107 of Cr.PC. For that, there should be materials to show that, unless prevented, petitioner’s activities will pose imminent threat to the peace and tranquility of the locality. The above crucial factors being absent in the impugned order, it is liable to be interfered with. In the result, the Crl.MC is allowed. Annexure A2
order and further proceedings thereon, as against the
petitioner, is quashed. Sd/- V.G.ARUN JUDGE Cak APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 7899/2024 PETITIONER’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER
DATED 23.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN MC NO. 434/2024 ANNEXURE A3 PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING THE STABBED WOUNDS ON THE PETITIONER’S SON ANNEXURE A4 A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE CASE NUMBERED AS SC NO. 426/2024 BEFORE THE DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN CRL. MC NO. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MANJERI