Athianna Gounder and others vs Nachiappan and others

M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J.—This revision is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in M.C.No.2 of 1981 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mettur. The main contention of the counsel appearing for the petitioners, and the attack on the order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mettur is that the order passed by the Magistrate under S. 111, Crl.P.C. in M.C. No.2 of 1981 on 23rd February, 1981 clubs both A and B party, which is void in law. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Magistrate is as follows:

Whereas it has been made to appear to me and I am satisfied from the above facts that there are sufficient grounds for initiating proceedings under S. 107, Cr.P.C., Therefore, I, T.N. Ramanathan, B.Com., Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Mettur, do hereby require you, the counter petitioners, A and B parties, to show cause as to why you should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 each for keeping peace for one year and bind yourselves not to commit any breach of peace or to do any action that may cause breach of peace during the said period.

From this it is evident that the Magistrate has passed the impugned order restraining both A and B parties and directed them to show cause as to why they should not execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 each for keeping peace for one year.

Under S. 107, Crl.P.C. if an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner provided require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit. S. 108, Cr.P.C. contemplates passing of an order by the Magistrate for security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters. S. 109, Crl.P.C. contemplates passing of an order for security for good behaviour from suspected persons. S. 110, Cr.P.C. con templates an order from the Magistrate for obtaining security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. S. 111 reads thus:

When a Magistrate acting under S. 107. S. 108, S. 109, or S. 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sure ties (if any) required.

The impugned order of the Magistrate is passed under S. 111, Crl.P.C., wherein he has directed both A and B parties to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1,000 for keeping-peace for one year and bound themselves not to commit any breach of peace or to do any action that may cause breach of peace during the said period. The order passed under S. 111 , Cr.P.C. suffers serious defect which would vitiate the order itself, i.e., the Magistrate has passed an order against both A and B parties. In this case, the Magistrate has clubbed both the A and B parties together. In Crl.M.P.No.181 of 1977 Natarajan, J., by by the order, dt. 17th June, 1977 has elaborately considered this aspect, and has referred to a number of decisions which laid down that two opposing parties to a proceeding under S. 107, Crl.P.C. cannot be proceeded against and bound over in one and the same proceedings. Following this decision, Paul, J., in Crl.M.P.No.1275 of 1978, dt.30th March, 1980 has observed, that the Magistrate has no jurisdiction to pass an order clubbing both A and B parties. I am in respectful agreement with the views expressed by Natarajan, J. and Paul, J. in the aforesaid decisions. In view of the fact that the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mettur is a defective order, the impugned order has to be quashed, for, he has impleaded and clubbed both A and B parties. In the circumstances, the order passed in M.C.No.2 of 1981, dt. 23rd February, 1981 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mettur has to be quashed and is accordingly quashed.