Baskaran and Others vs State

Natarajan, J.—The counter Petitioners in M.C. No. 255 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub Collector, Tindivanam, have filed this petition u/s 482 , Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the abovesaid proceeding against them.

The preliminary order passed by the learned Magistrate states that information has been laid against the counter Petitioners by the Inspector of police, Vikravandi and that the Magistrate is satisfied, on the basis of the information laid before him, that there is a likelihood of breach of peace in Colralur village, Tindivanam Taluk on account of the ill-feelings and misunderstandings between the counter Petitioners and the witnesses in connection with the disputes and quarrels between them pertaining to the incident cited in the report, and as such, the counter Petitioners should be called upon to face an enquiry and show cause why they should not be directed to execute bonds for Rs. 2,000 each for keeping the peace for a period of one year. The contention of Mr. Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners herein is that the order refers only to one incident, which had taken place in August, 1982, and the order itself discloses that in respect of that incident, the police have registered a case and filed a charge sheet and the case is pending before the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Villupuram Apart from referring to the incident, which happened in August, 1982 there is nothing further in the report of the Inspector of Police to show that there were subsequent incidents or that as a sequel to the incident, which took place in August, 1982, there is tension in the village and that the feelings between the counter-Petitioners and the witnesses are running high and there is an imminent danger of the peace and tranquillity of the village being disturbed by the apprehended acts of the counter-Petitioners. In the absence of such material, the learned Counsel would say that there was no basis at all for the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to have passed the impugned order and call upon the Petitioners to face an enquiry before him.

On a consideration of the matter, I find that the contention of Mr. Arunachalam is irrefutable. The order of the learned Magistrate refers only to an incident which took place in August, 1982. With reference to that incident, a case was registered and the matter is pending trial. The report does not say that subsequent to the incident, the feelings between the parties continued to be strained and that the counter-Petitioners were making preparations to attack the witnesses or that they were likely to cause disturbance to the peace and tranquillity in the village. Therefore, there was no material on the basis of which, the learned Magistrate could have justly felt satisfied that the counter-Petitioners Should be called upon to face an enquiry and execute bonds for being bound over to keep the peace. Once it is found that there was no basis at all for the preliminary order being passed u/s 111, Code of Criminal Procedure, then it goes without saying that the holding of any enquiry u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure, in pursuance of the preliminary order will not be in accordance with law.

Consequently, this petition deserves to succeed and will accordingly stand allowed and the proceedings against the Petitioners herein in M.C. No. 255 of 1983 oh the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Sub-Collector), Tindivanam, will stand quashed.