A solitary criminal case against an individual does not suffice to initiate proceedings under Sec. 107 and 111 Cr.P.C. without a discernible threat to public tranquility.

O R D E R

This Crl.M.C. is filed challenging the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam invoking the powers under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. The short point raised by the petitioner is that only a single case is registered against the petitioner and hence, the proceedings issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate invoking the powers under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. is unsustainable. The petitioner rely Annexure-A3 judgment passed by this Court in a similar situation. After Annexure- A1 notice, Annexure-A4 notice was again issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate invoking Sec. 111 Crl.P.C in which it is mentioned that one case is registered against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, Annexure-A1 and A4 are unsustainable. Hence, this Crl.M.C. is filed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The short point to be decided in this case is whether the Sub Divisional Magistrate justified in issuing notice under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. based on a single case. It is true that the offence alleged against the petitioner in that single case is under Sec. 302 IPC. But in Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others [2014 (3) KLT 2837], this Court observed that merely because the counter petitioner was made an accused in a case alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :

17. “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 mentioned under S.107 to 111 of the Code. The learned Magistrate has only reproduced the form without application of mind simply extracting the case numbers in which the counter petitioners were made accused. It is settled law that merely because the counter petitioner was made an accused in a case alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under S.107 of the Code. The purpose behind the initiation of proceedings is that there is an apprehension in the mind of the authorities that a particular person or set of persons is / are likely to involve in certain activities which is likely to create breach of peace and disrupt public tranquility in a particular place and presence of such persons in that place