Abdul Khader vs State Of Kerala

Petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure A1 preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam requiring them to show cause against executing bond under Section 107, undertaking to keep peace for a period of one year. The challenge against Annexure A1 is on the premise that it runs contrary to the procedure prescribed and the satisfaction required for initiating action under Section 111. On facts, it is submitted that the crimes mentioned in Annexure A1 have been falsely foisted against the petitioners at the instance of one Biju M.Abraham, whose demand to transfer possession and ownership over the first petitioner's plantation having an extent of 650 Acres has not been acceded. Reliance is placed on the decisions of this Court in Henry Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala [2009(4) KLT 495], Stanley v. State of Kerala [2012(2) KLT 892], Santhosh v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837] and Bejoy v. State of Kerala [2015(4) 603] to contend that in the absence of any imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity of an area from a person, an order under Section 107 cannot be issued. Further, the preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C should contain the information based on which the Magistrate arrived at the satisfaction of there being an imminent threat to the peace and tranquillity and that, mere mentioning of a few crime numbers in the order, will not satisfy the requirement. It is submitted that the petitioners are not accused in Crime No.32 of 2019 mentioned in the order. Attention is drawn to Annexure A2 order by which the first petitioner was granted bail in Crime No.823 of 2020 of Santhanpara Police Station subject to stringent conditions, including the condition that he shall not get involved in any similar offences. It is the specific contention of the petitioners that, in the absence of any allegation of the first petitioner having violated the bail condition, there was no justification for initiating the impugned proceedings. By Annexure A3, this Court had quashed the proceedings under Section 107 initiated against one Beena and others, who according to the petitioners, are members of the rival group headed by Biju M.Abraham.

The Inspector of Police Santhanpara has filed a statement highlighting the rivalry among the petitioners and another group regarding the ownership and possession of GIE Plantations, a partnership firm having 650 Acres in Santhanpara Village, which has resulted in various crimes being registered against the members of both groups. The details of the crimes have been narrated in the statement.

I find substantial force in the contention of the petitioners that, in the absence of any allegation of the first petitioner having violated the conditions imposed in Annexure A2 order, the assumption that the petitioners are posing threat to the peace and tranquillity is not justified. Further, other than the crime numbers, details of the information that had prompted the Sub Divisional Magistrate to issue Annexure A1 is not stated in the order. The fact that a similar notice issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate was quashed vide Annexure A3, finding that the substance of the information was not stated in the impugned order, is also a relevant consideration. For the aforementioned reasons, I am unable to sustain Annexure A1.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed. Annexure A1 and further proceedings based on that order is quashed, without prejudice to the authority of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Devikulam to initiate fresh proceedings, if so warranted.