Compliance with legal principles in proceedings initiated under Section 122(1)(b) of Cr.P.C is essential for a valid order.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Petition has been filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C, to call for the records pertaining to the order of the first respondent in M.C.No.28 of 2022/A5, dated 11.03.2022 and set aside the same.)

1. The Criminal Revision Case is directed against the order, dated 11.03.2022 passed by the first respondent/The II Class Executive Magistrate and Tahsildar, Dindigul West Taluk Office, Dindigul Town, Dindigul District in M.C.No.28/2022/A5, under Section 122(1) (b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. The first respondent, on the basis of the report sent by the second respondent, initiated proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C, in LIR No.27/2022 on 05.02.2022, and on that basis, the petitioner has been bound over and released after he executed a bond for maintaining good behaviour for a period one six months till 06.08.2022. Subsequently, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner in Crime No.126 of 2022 on the file of the Dindigul Taluk Police Station, under Section 379 IPC on 09.03.2022 and the petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.03.2022. The second respondent, by alleging that the petitioner violated/breached the bond executed by him, has sent a requisition, requesting the first respondent to initiate necessary action under Section 122(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Based on the requisition of the second respondent Police, the first respondent issued a show cause notice to the prison officials, directing them to produce the petitioner on 11.03.2022. The first respondent after conducting enquiry, has passed the impugned order vide proceedings in M.C.No.28/2022/A5, dated 11.03.2022, cancelling the security bond executed by the petitioner on 07.02.2022 and ordered to detain him in prison until the expiry of the period of bond viz., 06.08.2022. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

3. Heard Mr.V.Karuna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manikandan, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the FIR referred by the respondents in Crime No.230 of 2019 on the file of the Dindigul Police Station, for the alleged offence under Sections 324, 326, 342, 379, 394, 506(ii) IPC was not at all sent to the concerned Court, that after enquiry, the petitioner came to know that Crime No.230 of 2019 was registered by the said police for the offence under Section 4(1)(a) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and that there was no such FIR as alleged by the respondents against the petitioner.

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State would submit that by mistake the name of the Police Station has been wrongly mentioned as Dindigul Taluk Police Station instead of Vedasandhur Police Station, that the Vedasandur Police has registered the case in Crime No.230 of 2019 against the petitioner for the alleged offence under Sections 324, 326, 342, 379, 394, 506(ii) IPC and that since it is only a mistake committed by the oversight, the same cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner.

6. In the counter affidavit, the second respondent has specifically mentioned the particulars of four cases pending against the petitioner, which includes the case in Crime No.230 of 2019 on the file of the Vedasanthur Police Station for the alleged offences under Section 324, 326, 342, 379, 394, 506(ii) IPC altered into 326, 342, 394 and 506(ii) IPC.

7. Considering the above, since it is a typographical mistake committed by the respondents 1 and 2, the same cannot be taken advantage of by the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Karuppasamy has lodged a complaint alleging that on 08.03.2022 at about 06.30 pm, his vehicle Bajaj Discover bearing Registration No.TN 50 AV 4253, which was parked infront of their backyard, was found missing, that they have chased a person, who had taken the vehicle, but the said person along with