Beena And Ors vs State Of Kerala

The petitioners are aggrieved by Annexure A notice issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C, requiring them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute bonds for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) each with two solvent sureties for Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand) each, for keeping the peace for a period of one year. The challenge against Annexure A is on the ground that the substance of the information, which prompted the proceedings is not discernible from the notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, inasmuch as the substance of the information leading to initiation of the proceedings is not stated in Annexure A, the notice is liable to be quashed. In support of this proposition, reliance was placed on the decision of the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye v SDM, Monghyr (AIR 1971 SC 2486) and the decisions of this court in Henry Vijayakumar v State of Kerala (2009(4)KLT495), Santhosh v State of Kerala (2014(3) Kerala 837) and Bejoy v State of Kerala (2015 (4) Kerala 603).

The very basis for initiation of proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C is the information that any particular person is likely to commit breach of the peace or disturb public tranquility or do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. Based on such information, the Magistrate should form an opinion of there being sufficient ground to proceed. Therefore, the person called upon to show cause against the proposed action should necessarily be furnished with details of the information. The legal position was clearly laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye (Supra) and reiterated in the subsequent decisions.

A perusal of Annexure A shows that, other than the crime numbers, nothing further is stated in the notice. Vagueness is manifest from the use terms like 'such crimes' and 'such activities' in the notice, without stating any detail regarding the offence with which the petitioners are charged, or the activities which the petitioners had indulged in. Therefore, the notice cannot survive judicial scrutiny.

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