Adimadavan and Others vs State and Another

V. Kanagaraj, J.—The above Criminal Original Petition has been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying to call for the

records in Roc. No. 5430/2002/A2 on the file of the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem and quash the

same.

The petitioners, who are ''A'' party respondent Nos. 1, 4 and 6 among seven in the row, in which the ''B'' party respondents, are also six in

number, in the above proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate, Salem against both the parties u/s 107 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, have come forward to file the above criminal original petition seeking for the relief extracted supra on grounds such as that the

said Executive Magistrate, as per his preliminary order dated 28-1-2003 has called for the petitioners to appear before him on 31-1-2003 at

10.00 a.m. and show-cause as to why the petitioners should not be directed to execute bonds for maintenance of peace and tranquillity in the area

u/s 107 of Cr. P.C. and that the said order is bad for the following reasons :

(i) that the order is not sustainable in law as per Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure since it has not set forth the substance of the

information received and the term in which the bond has to be executed;

(ii) that the Executive Magistrate has to pass a preliminary order u/s 111 of the Cr. P.C. but not u/s 107 of the Cr. P.C.;

(iii) that one incidence by itself cannot be an occasion for initiating the proceeding u/s 107 of the Cr. P.C.;

(iv) that the Executive Magistrate has committed an error in requiring the petitioners to execute the bonds, even before he had commenced the

enquiry;

(v) that the instance cited do not connect all the petitioners;

(vi) that there is nothing to indicate that the Magistrate has made an objective assessment about the truth and the urgency of the information laid

before him;

(vii) that the Executive Magistrate has passed the order without application of mind since there is no averment in the order as to how the Executive

Magistrate has arrived at his subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of breach of public peace and tranquillity.

On such grounds, the petitioners have prayed for the quash of the preliminary order passed by the Executive Magistrate.

During arguments, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners would lay emphasis on the same points which have been set out

above and would pray to quash the proceedings. On the other, hand, the learned Government Advocate on the criminal side, appearing on behalf

of the respondents, would submit that the learned Executive Magistrate has complied with all the legal requirements, such as the source of

information, likelihood of the breach of peace and disturbance for public tranquillity and that in the opinion of the Executive Magistrate, if any

person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any lawful act that may probably occasion a breach of the

peace, the Executive Magistrate may require such person to show-cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute the bond with or without

surety for keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. The learned Government Advocate would also

focus his attention on Section 111, Cr. P.C. regarding the order that is to be made as it has been made in the case in hand, the requirements of

which are that he shall make the order in writing setting forth the substance of information received, the amount of bond to be executed, the term

for which it is to be in force and the particulars of sureties, if any required and therefore the learned Government Advocate would ultimately pray to

dismiss the above criminal original petition.

In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned Government Advocate contra, what could be assessed is that the petitioners, who are the members of ''A'' party respondents in

the proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-the Revenue Divisional Officer, Salem, raising certain grounds and

quoting some judgments delivered in the past, which have been rendered to suit the facts and circumstances of those cases dealt with by the

learned Judges in the past, have come forward to file the above criminal original petition and this Court is of the view that it is necessary to find out

on those grounds raised that whether the order made by the first respondent/the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is proper or in violation of the

provisions of law covering the subject.

At the outset, it must be mentioned that, the order has been made u/s 111 of the Cr. P.C. and therefore factually it is false on the part of the

petitioners to allege that the order has been made u/s 107, Cr. P.C. It could be further seen that in the first paragraph of the said order, the learned

Magistrate has made it clear as to what is the subject-matter, giving the cause of action for such an order to be made by the Magistrate so as to

arrive at the conclusion that there is the likelihood of breach of peace and disturbance to the tranquillity of the subject and therefore it cannot also

be said that the reason for invoking the provisions of law under Sections 107 and 111, Cr. P.C. has not been mentioned in the order.

It is further glaringly seen that on an information furnished by the Shevapet Police authorities in connection with the Crime No. 381/2002, dated

27-6-2002 and submitting the first information report in the said case, the said police have requested the learned Magistrate to initiate the

proceeding u/s 107, Cr. P.C. and therefore the source of information is also made very clear. It cannot be definitely said that on a single or isolated

event that has occurred, a proceeding cannot be initiated u/s 107, Cr. P.C. Even if it is a single incident or without any such incident having taken

place, if the Magistrate receives any information that any person is likely to commit a breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any

wrongful act that may probably occasion breach of peace and tranquillity or disturb the public tranquility ;it is sufficient ground for the Magistrate to

initiate such a proceeding as it has been resorted to by the learned Magistrate in the case in hand so as to require the ''A'' and ''B'' party

respondents to show-cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute the bond for keeping peace in the area.

It could also be further seen that the learned Magistrate has made a mention of the period for which the bond has to be executed being one year

which is the maximum period given by law and also the amount of Rs. 60,000/- being the amount of bond that is to be executed by the party

respondents and in such event there is also no enquiry need be conducted as it has been claimed on the part of the petitioners for issuing such a

preliminary order and after having issued the said order, the Magistrate could conduct the enquiry as he is pleased to have it whether within the

local jurisdiction or outside the jurisdiction or even beyond his jurisdiction. Therefore, the preliminary order requiring the party respondents much

less the petitioners issued in the proceeding mentioned supra by the first respondent/Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrate-cum-the Revenue

Divisional Officer, Salem is a perfect order made incompliance with the requirements of both Sections 107 and 111 of the Cr. P.C. and there is no

inconsistency or infirmity or patent error which are said to have occurred in the subject satisfaction arrived at by the learned Magistrate so as to

issue the said order and therefore the interference of this Court sought to be made into the well considered and merited order passed by the first

respondent is not only unnecessary but unwarranted as well and hence the following order :

In result, there is no merit in the above criminal original petition and the same deserves only to be dismissed and is dismissed as such.

Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 1718 of 2003 is also dismissed.