Somasundaram and Others vs The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram and Another

Both these petitions are disposed of together since the petitioners in each of these petitions are the rival parties, against whom proceedings u/s

107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, have been initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram.

On the basis of the information laid before him by the Inspector of Police, Vellakoil, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum Revenue Divisional

Officer, Dharapuram, passed the orders separately in M.C.Nos.12 and 13 of 2000, dated 24.10.2000, u/s 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code,

directing the respective parties to appear before him on 6.11.2000 at 11.00 a.m. at Dharapuram and to show cause as to why they should not be

ordered to execute a Bond for Rs.20,000 with sureties for the like sum each to keep peace and for good behavior for a period of one year.

On receipt of the orders, the members of both the parties, against whom separate proceedings had been initiated, had come forward with these

two petitions u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the proceedings.

In both the orders passed u/s 111 of Cr.P.C., the details of the complaints given by both the parties in Vellakoil Police Station, which were

treated as petitions in CSR Nos.298 and 299 of 2000, are stated and besides that, the first information report in FIR No.469 of 2000, given by

the Inspector of Police, Vellakoil, is referred to. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has stated in the orders that based on the first information report in

FIR No.469 of 2000, he is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding u/s 107 of Cr.P.C. against respective parties.

Mr.V.K.Muthuswamy, learned senior counsel, appearing for the petitioners in Crl.O.P.No.21085 of 2000 and the learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners in CrKO.P.No.23708 of 2000, contended that the notice issued u/s 111 of Cr.P.C. has to satisfy a double test, namely, the

notice must furnish all the information which are laid against persons and before issuing notice, the Executive Magistrate must satisfy himself that the

situation calls for issuing of an order and in this case, even though the Sub-Divisional Magistrate claims to have received information in FIR No.469

of 2000, the same was not furnished in the notices and there is nothing to indicate that the Magistrate has made an objective assessment about the

truth and urgency of the information laid before him and hence the orders are vitiated and in support of the contention, the following decisions of

this Court are relied on.

(i) Chinnaswamy and 32 others v. State, rep. by Inspector of Police, Tiruchengodu, 1983 LW (Cri) 233; (ii) Sundaram and others v. State rep. by

the Inspector of Police, Tisayanvilai, 1987 L.W.(Crl.) 266; and (iii) Sivaswamy Thevar and 24 others v. Inspector of Police, Puliangudi, 1990 (2)

MWN (Cri.) 215.

An order passed u/s 111 of Cr.P.C. has to satisfy a double test: (1) It must set forth the substance of the information received as well as the

amount of the bond to be executed, the terms of which it is to be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any required). (2)

Besides, the order must also reflect that the Magistrate has assessed the truth of the information and the need for taking action u/s 107 of Crl.P.C.

for preservation of peace and order. In the present case, as already seen, the orders passed u/s 111 of Cr.P.C. do not set forth the substance of

information received by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and the nature of the case the petitioners have to meet before entering appearance. Lack of

information in the show cause order had caused prejudice to the petitioners, since they were not in a position to challenge the same.

The Sub-Divisional Magistrate has to satisfy himself about the need to issue a show cause order and the order must reflect the application of

mind by the Magistrate to the facts placed before him. The impugned orders do not indicate application of mind by the Magistrate and they do not

satisfy the double test much less any one of them and hence they are liable to be quashed.

In the result, both the petitions are allowed and the proceedings in M.C.Nos.12 and 13 of 2000 on the file of Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-

Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram, are quashed. Connected Crl.M.P.Nos.7875 and 9057 of 2000 are closed.