IMPORTANT POINT
A preliminary order under Section 107 requires clear evidence of imminent threat to public peace, not merely past criminal involvement.

ORDER :

This Crl.M.C has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

“Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in M.C.No.387/2023 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna against the petitioner (Annexure A), in the interests of justice.”

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the order and the relevant provisions.

3. Annexure A Order dated 23.09.2023, issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna in M.C. No.387 of 2023 is under challenge in this petition.

4. While assailing the order, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that preliminary order with a direction to execute bond for Rs.50,000/-with two solvent sureties for the like amount to keep the peace for a period of one year as contemplated in Section 107 r/w Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC for short) has been passed against the petitioner, without any justifiable reasons. It is submitted that the order has been passed after referring only one crime viz. Crime No.1 of 2023 alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 354-A(1)(i) of Indian Penal Code as well as under Sections 8, 7, 9(l) & 9(m) and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in order to pass a preliminary order under Section 107 r/w 111 of Cr.PC, the conditions laid under Section 111 Cr.PC should be followed. He has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Santhosh M.V and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 (3) KHC SN 54] raising contention that merely because a person was made an accused in one case, the same alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under Section 107 of Cr.PC. In paragraphs 15 and 17 of the Judgment, this Court observed as under:

“In all the above cases, proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the basis of crimes registered by the Station House Officer stating a vague information that the petitioners are likely to indulge in criminal activities causing public disorder and affecting peace in the locality, issued the impugned orders. It is clear from the above order that there is nothing mentioned in the order regarding the reason for the authority to come to a conclusion that the activities of the counter petitioners in that proceedings gave a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the authority that they are likely to cause breach of peace and disrupt public tranquility at a particular time at a particular place which requires immediate intervention of the authorities to prevent such activities and for that purpose, they have to be called upon to enter on a bond to keep good behaviour for a particular period. In that case, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has only extracted the wordings in the printed form and extracted the case numbers in which the counter petitioner was made an accused. He had not mentioned as to how far that is relevant for the purpose of considering the question as to whether the counter petitioners have to be called upon to enter on a bond to prevent public tranquility or breach of peace in the locality. As discussed above, the very purpose of initiating proceedings under S.107 of the Code is to prevent public tranquility and breach of peace expected to be committed by the counter petitioners at a particular place at a particular time or period of time and it was intended to prevent that, that they are called upon to enter on a bond for good behaviour for a particular period, so that they can be prevented from participating in any act causing anticipated public tranquility or breach of peace in a particular place for a particular time. On a reading of the impugned order will go to show that there is nothing to infer from that order even to infer, the reason for the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to come to such a conclusion that the counter petitioner must be asked to enter into a bond for the purpose ment