An order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. should comply with legal principles and principles of natural justice, and exparte orders should only be passed in cases of emergency or where circumstances do not admit of personal service.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer in Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2023 : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.407 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in M.C.No.207 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent and set-aside the order dated 28.12.2022 in M.C.No.207 of 2022 as against the petitioner.

Crl.R.C.No.140 of 2023 : Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.407 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in M.C.No.206 of 2022 pending on the file of the first respondent and set-aside the order dated 28.12.2022 in M.C.No.206 of 2022 as against the petitioner.)

Common Order:

Challenging the Prohibitory order passed by the first respondent in M.C.Nos.207 & 206 of 2022, dated 28.12.2022 the present Criminal Revision cases are filed.

2. Since the issue involved in both the revision petitions are one and the same, both the Criminal Revision Petitions are disposed of by way of a common order.

3. The brief averment of the fact is that the revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2023 is Vive @ Vikram @ Vikraman and the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.140 of 20213 is Ezhilarasi @ Meena. Both the parties have reportedly indulging in serious offences like organized murders, extortion, hurt, criminal intimidation and thereby became a perennial source of threat to the community and disturbance to the public tranquility and they are reported to be notorious rowdy elements and being watched by the police constantly in the interest of Public Order. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent by reference to I.R.Nos.25/2022 and 24/2022, dated 16.12.2022 sent information to the first respondent under Section 144(i)(ii)(iii) Cr.P.C for issuing order. In pursuance of the information furnished by the 2nd respondent in the above reference, and after satisfying the information passed an order under Section 144(2) Cr.P.C. to restrain him not to enter into the entire region of Karaikal District, which is under the jurisdiction of this Court for a period of two months or 60 days from the date of this order or till any further orders are passed by the competent Authority revoking this prohibition as per law, whichever is earlier except when he is summoned to attend the cases in any of the Courts in Karaikal, which is now challenged herein.

4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent/Executive Authory are exparty orders, without any emergent situation and without any notice and enquiry and without disclosing the material facts. Further the previous criminal records of the person are not alone foundation for invoking the power conferred under Section 144 Cr.P.C. The petitioners are not involved in any criminal activities during the relevant period. The restriction Order passed by the authority for the period of 2 months is unreasonable and violation of right of human as guaranteed under Article 19(1)(d) and (e) of the Constitution of India. The show cause notices were not served upon the petitioners in both the revision petitions. But, served upon one Baby, who is the mother in law of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.136 of 2023 and mother of the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.140 of 2023. No attempt was made by the respondent police to comply with the statutory mandatory requirement under Section 134 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the proceedings conducted in the absence of the petitioners and non-compliance of Section 134 of Cr.P.C would vitiate the proceedings initiated under Section 144 of Cr.P.C,. Thus pleaded to set aside the order passed by the authorities.

5. The learned counsel, to support his argument relied upon the following judgments: (1) 2013 SCC Online Mad.3244 : 2014(1) LW (cri) 375 (Guna @ Vella Guna @ Gunasekaran /vs/ The District Magistrate, Gov. of Puducherry) , (2) Order of this Court in Cr.R.C.No.1198 of 2016 (Kumar @ Kosa Kumar @ Chandiran /vs/ The Sub-Divisional Magistrate (south), Villianur, Pondicherry & otrs), (3) Order of this Court in Crl.R.C.No. 625 of 2016 ( Lloo @ Lemon Anandaraj /vs/ The District Magi