Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 7TH JYAISHTA, 1946 CRIME NO.1531/2023 OF ERAVIPURAM POLICE STATION, Kollam MC NO.545 OF 2024 OF SUB.DVL.MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM PETITIONERS/ COUNTER PETITIONERS: 1 SHARIF AGED 48 YEARS, S/O ASANARUKUNJ, MYLAPORE, UMAYANALLUR P.O. THATHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, PIN - 691020 2 SALAHUDDIN AGED 47 YEARS, S/O UMMER KHALEEL, PADINJATTU, MYLAPORE, UMAYANALLUR P.O., THATHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, 3 SUDHIR AGED 35 YEARS, S/O KABIR KUTTY (GAFOOR), CHEKALA HOUSE, MYLAPORE, UMAYANALLUR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691 020 4 SUNEER AGED 38 YEARS, S/O GAFOOR, CHEKALA HOUSE, MYLAPORE, UMAYANALLURP.O. KOLLAM, 5 KABIRKUTTY @ GAFOOR AGED 73 YEARS, CHEKALA HOUSE, MYLAPORE, UMAYANALLUR P.O. KOLLAM, PIN - 691020 6 ANAS AGED 34 YEARS, S/O NASSER, MEVARATH VEEDU, THATTAMALA P.O., THAZHUTHALA VILLAGE, KOLLAM, 7 JALALUDDIN AGED 50 YEARS S/O SUBAIRKUTTY, SHAFI MANZIL, UMAYANALLUR P.O. KOLLAM, 8 SHAHJAHAN AGED 50 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMAD HANEEFA, VELLANGATHODI HOUSE, THATTAMALA P.O., KOLLAM, PIN - 691 020 9 NASSER AGED 63 YEARS, S/O MUHAMMAD KUNJ, MEWARATH HOUSE, THATTAMALA P.O. KOLLAM, BY ADVS. BIJITH S.KHAN MANSOOR ALI RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT : 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, KOLLAM, CIVIL STATION, CIVIL ROAD, KAANATHU MUKKU, KOLLAM, PIN - 691 013 BY SMT.SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Crl.M.C.No.4548 of 2024 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 28th day of May, 2024
ORDER
Petitioners challenge the notice issued under Section 111(1) of the Cr.P.C. asking them to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 31.05.2024 and to show cause why they shall not be ordered to execute a bond for maintaining peace.
2. Sri.Bijith S. Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners
submitted that no specific reasons have been stated to proceed against the petitioners and further that individual reasons have also not been mentioned. It was also submitted that as a practice, the Sub Divisional Magistrate compels the petitioners to execute the bond when they appear on the date and therefore, this Court ought to interfere.
3. I have heard Smt.Sreeja V., the learned Public Prosecutor as well.
4. Section 111 Cr.P.C. itself specifies that a Magistrate acting under
the said provision must call upon a person to show cause why an order
under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 110 shall not be issued. If the person shows cause, then the Sub Divisional Magistrate is obliged under Section 116 to enquire into the truth of the information upon which the action has been taken and also take further evidence as may be necessary.
5. Since the statute itself protects against any insistence on the
date of appearance to execute a bond, provided explanation is given by the person called upon to show cause, certainly the Magistrates are bound to proceed under Section 116 Cr.P.C. Therefore the contention of the petitioners that on their appearance the Sub Divisional Magistrate will insist on executing a bond is without any merit. As far as the contention regarding the absence of reasons in Annexure A1 is concerned, the petitioners can certainly raise all the contentions before the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the date fixed. Therefore, I find no merit in this Crl.M.C. and it is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 4548/2024 PETITIONERS' ANNEXURES : Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER IN M.CNO:545/2024 DATED 08.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN IN CRIME NO: DATED 26.08.2023 Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO DATED 25.08.2023