Shanmugiah and others vs State and others

K.M. Natarajan, J.—"A" party in M.C. No. 8 of 1984 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, and R.D.O. Usilampatti, has preferred this application for quashing the said proceedings, mainly on the ground that the clubbing of both the ''A'' and ''B'' patties in one and the same proceeding and holding joint enquiry is highly illegal, and as such the proceedings is to be quashed. Certain other grounds were alleged, namely, there was longstanding dispute which had not led to any likelihood of breach of peace, the Court below has not applied its mind regarding likelihood of breach of peace and the ingredients which are necessary for instituting proceedings have not been made out.

In view of the fact that the consideration of the main ground itself is sufficient to dispose of this petition, it is needless to go into other contentions. this Court has repeatedly held in a catena of decisions that the clubbing of both parties, i.e., A party and B party, in one and the same proceeding, is illegal and as such, the proceedings are liable to be quashed on the said ground. If any authority is needed, the decision in Athianna Gounder and others v. Nachiappan and others 1982 L.W. (Crl.) 61 rendered by M.A. Sathar Sayeed, J. may be quoted. It has been held therein

In view of the fact that the order passed by the Magistrate is a defective order, the impugned order has to be quashed, for, he has impleaded and clubbed both A and B parties.

In that case, reliance was also placed on the earlier decision in Shanmugavel and others v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Vdumalpet and ten others Crl.M.P. 181 of 1977 wherein Natarajan, J. as he then was, elaborately considered this aspect and considered a number of earlier decisions and held 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 proceeding. Paul, J. in V.S. Sayeed Ahmed and Akbar and others v. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Chermadevi and others Crl. M.P. 1275 of 1979 , 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 in the above decisions and also other decisions. In the view taken by this Court the clubbing of both the A and B parties in the instant case is illegal and the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

In the result, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in M.C. No. 8 of 1984 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate, and R.D.O., Usilampatti against the petitioners are hereby quashed.