Kaliappa Nadar and 13 others vs State

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a petition u/s 482 , Crl. P.C. praying this Court to quash the proceedings in M.C. No. 65 of 1985 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has passed an order u/s 111, Crl. P.C., calling upon the Petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 1,000 each with two sureties for the like sum and to keep peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year and also why they should not be ordered to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the case.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the order was bad. Firstly, placing reliance on a decision of this. Court in K.V. Shanmugham v. State, Inspector of Police, Palladam 1978 L.W. (Cri.) 130, he contended that before issuing a notice, the Magistrate should furnish all the informations received against the persons concerned and that he should satisfy himself that the situation called for the issuance of a show cause notice. In the instant case, the Petitioners have been given sufficient information about the allegations made against them in the order and the Magistrate has considered them and he has expressed his satisfaction that there was sufficient ground for proceeding. Therefore, this contention fails.

Next it was contended that there should not be a criminal proceeding parallel to a proceeding u/s 107, Crl. P.C., and for that purpose he relied on a decision of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A B. Chandra Reddy v. Revenue Inspector, Rajampet 1980 M.L.J. (Cri.) 432. He said that in Instance No. 2 which is a case against one Subramaniam, there was already a case registered against him and that the abovesaid decision would apply. I do not want to say anything here regarding the relevancy of the decision quoted. The Magistrate has enumerated three instances and in instances 1 and 2 all the Petitioners are involved. Even if we eschew Instance No. 2 in which Subramaniam alone is involved, there will be still sufficient ground for proceeding.

In this case, the Magistrate while asking the Petitioners to show cause has also asked them to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute an interim bond. The consideration for a need of interim bond would arise only after the commencement of the enquiry u/s 116 , Crl. P.C. Only after the commencement of the enquiry, when concerned persons appear, if it appears to the Magistrate that immediate measures are necessary, he can pass an interim order. Therefore, that portion of the order as to why the Petitioner should not be ordered to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the case is clearly against law and is set aside. As far as the remaining of the impugned order is concerned, I do not find any infirmity. However, it appears that the occurrence took place in the month of June, 1985. Therefore, before proceeding further, the Magistrate shall satisfy himself again whether the conditions are such as his order should be implemented. After satisfying himself, he shall again issue fresh notices to the Petitioners if need be. With these observations, the petition is dismissed in part.