A preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C requires evidence of imminent breach of peace, not merely the registration of a crime.

ORDER

Petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure 1 preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C issued by the 2^nd respondent requiring him to show cause as to why he should not be called upon to execute bond for Rs.50,000/- with sureties to keep peace for a period of one year.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that mere registration of a crime against the petitioner, that too under the provisions of the Lotteries (Regulation) Act cannot be the basis for issuing a preliminary order under Section 111 . It is further contended that, the impugned order is issued anticipating that the petitioner may commit acts of violence in the locality in future. Relying on the decisions in Chirukandath Chandrasekharan and Others v. State of Kerala [1970 KHC 303] and Moidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KHC 139] , it is contended that mere anticipation of a possible breach of peace is not sufficient for issuing an order under Section 107 and the breach of peace sought to be prevented should be imminent.

3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that a reading of Annexure 2 report would reveal that the activities of the petitioner is resulting in breach of public peace and therefore, usage of a wrong expression in the order cannot be taken as a ground for quashing the proceedings.

4. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the reasons that had prompted the 2^nd respondent to initiate the proceedings is the registration of a crime against the petitioner and an apprehension that the petitioner may indulge in acts of violence in the locality. As far as registration of the crime is concerned, this Court in Santhosh M.V and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 522] has held that, being an accused in a case alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 107 . It is now settled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in Moidu (supra) that the breach of peace which is sought to be prevented, by requiring the accused to execute a bond under should be imminent and not a distant possibility. Therefore, even though, as submitted by the Public Prosecutor, conduct of illegal lottery business is a social evil and may cause public disturbance, insofar as the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not perceive such breach of peace to be imminent, petitioner’s liberty cannot be curtailed by requiring him to execute a bond. Apart from the above legal infirmity, elapse of the one year period, for which the petitioner was required to execute the bond, also assumes relevance.

For the aforementioned reasons, all further proceedings in M.C No.448 of 2023 on the files of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Taliparamba, as against the petitioner, is quashed.