Vaikundasamy and Others vs The State of Tamil Nadu

G. Rajasuria, J.—This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to M.C. No. 4 of 2007 on the file of the second respondent

herein and quash the same.

When the matter has come up for admission, by consent of both sides, the main petition itself has been taken up for disposal

The short facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this petition would run thus:

Based on the F.I.R in Cr. No. 12 of 2007 registered u/s 107(1)Cr.P.C dated 13.01.2007, the learned Executive Magistrate - cum - Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, passed preliminary order dated 13.01.2007 calling upon the petitioners herein to show cause as to why adhering to

Section 107 Cr.P.C, the petitioner should not be called upon to execute relevant bonds for a period of one year. It is assumed that such an order

was passed u/s 111 Cr.P.C even though there is no specific Section in the order.

Be that as it may, the perusal of the said order deemed to have been passed u/s 111 Cr.P.C would detail and delineate, express and expatiate

under ground No. 1 of it that between 31.05.2006 and 10.06.2006, ''A'' party i.e, Vaigundasamy group wanted to celebrate Kodai festival as per

their petition No. 105 of 2006; whereas the other party i.e, Sivalingaraja group for filing a petition also wanted to conduct Kodai festival on the

same date and that there were no amicable settlement arrived at before the Executive Magistrate - cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli

and hence, the key of the said temple was entrusted to Tahsildhar, Sankarankovil; thereupon the rival parties approached this Court and in favour

of one party, order was passed and they got the key.

The ground No. 2 is to the effect that the above said Sivalingaraja group, by their petition No. 233 of 2006 wanted to celebrate festival during

the period 27.10.2006 and 01.11.2006. However, the petitioners herein, Vaikundasamy group, on their side also sent a petition for celebrating the

festival in the said temple. There were wordy quarrels between the two groups and it affected the public tranquility; thereupon, a civil suit was filed

by Vaigundasamy group in the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil and they obtained an injunction order as against the Sivalingaraja group.

The ground No. 3 as found set out is that on 05.01.2007 Sivalingaraja group applied to obtain permission to conduct festival in Sri Mariamman

temple between 09.01.2007 and 17.01.2007 and that there were quarrels between the two groups and that affected the public order.

Based on those three grounds, the Executive Magistrate passed that order u/s 111 Cr.P.C.

The learned Government advocate (Criminal Side) would submit that there was threat prevailing in that area between the said Vaikundasamy

group and Sivalingaraja group; there were civil litigations pending before the civil Court relating to the conduct of the festival in Sri

Balasubramaniasamy temple as well as Mariamman temple.

The core question arises as to whether there is any prima facie ground on the part of the Executive Magistrate to invoke Chapter VIII of the

Code of Criminal Procedure and pass order u/s 111 Cr.P.C so as to get bonds executed u/s 107 Cr.P.C.

The perusal of the impugned order would show that as per the last paragraph of the impugned order, the learned Executive Magistrate called

upon those persons to execute bonds for good behaviour which is not contemplated u/s 107 Cr.P.C. What is contemplated u/s 107 Cr.P.C is only

a bond for maintaining law and order i.e, bond for keeping peace for a period of one year. Bonds for good behaviour is only contemplated under

Sections 108, 109 and 110 Cr.P.C and not u/s 107 Cr.P.C and on that ground itself, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and accordingly,

by allowing this petition, the order passed in M.C. No. 4 of 2007 by the Executive Magistrate - cum - Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirunelveli, is

quashed. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD) No. 1 of 2007 is also closed. The learned Executive Magistrate - cum - Revenue Divisional Officer

is at liberty to take appropriate steps afresh if he chooses to do so by strictly complying with Section 107 Cr.P.C.