The court established that the invocation of Sections 107 and 111 CrPC requires sufficient grounds for concern about a breach of peace, underscoring preventive over punitive action.

ORDER

These petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 27.4.2023 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kochi invoking the powers under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the Code” for the sake of brevity). The impugned orders, which are identically worded, call upon the petitioners to attend the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate on 11.5.2023 at 11 am and show cause why they shall not be ordered to execute a cash bond for Rs 100,000/ ( Rupees One Lakh Only) with two solvent sureties for the like sum for keeping the peace for a period of one year under Section 107 of the CrPC.

2. Sri N.A. Shafeek, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners urged before this Court that before proceeding to invoke the powers under Section 107 of the Code, the learned Magistrate was bound to consider the materials placed before him and to satisfy himself that there are sufficient grounds for invoking the provision and to call up the individual to execute a bond as contemplated therein for a fixed period. According to the learned counsel, it would be pellucid even on a casual perusal of the order that the learned Magistrate has not cared to apply his mind to the facts of the case and he was acting at the dictates of the Police. All that is mentioned in the order, which is almost identical in all the cases, except the name of the party against whom the order is issued, is that Crime No 83/23 of the North Paravur Police Station has been registered and nothing more. It is urged by the learned counsel that the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction under S.107, Criminal Procedure Code is imminent danger to peace and tranquility. It is contended that there was no material before the learned Magistrate to arrive at an inference that there is every likelihood of an imminent breach of peace within his jurisdictional limits. Finally, it is contended that the preliminary order under Section 107 did not meet the requirement of Section 111 of the Code. Reliance is placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court inMoidu v. State of Kerala [1982 KHC 139: 1982 KLT 578 ] and the decision of the learned Single Judges inPeethambaran v. State of Kerala [1980 KHC 239: 1980 KLT 876 : ILR 1980 (2) Ker. 589], Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala [2014 (2) KLD 519], and Bejoy K.V. v. State of Kerala [2015 (2) KLD 889].

3. The learned Public prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that based on the report received from the Sub Inspector of Police, the Sub Divisional Magistrate was convinced and satisfied that the petitioners herein pose a real threat to public peace and tranquility. Referring to Section 107 of the Code and to its objective, it is submitted that the provision is not intended as a punitive action but a preventive one, and according to him, the learned Magistrate was well justified in acting on such information. 4. I have considered the submissions advanced and have perused the records.

5. The orders which are impugned in these petitions are identically worded. Even the date on which the petitioners herein have been asked to appear and the number of the crime in which they are involved is the same.

It would therefore be apposite to extract the order for convenience:

IN THE COURT OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI (Present: Vishnuraj P IAS)

MC.139/23 No.88/TD/2023/BI North Paravur Police Station Petitioner: State represented by the Inspector of Police, - North Paravur Police Station Counter Petitioner:- Varghese P John@ Prakash John 60/23 S/o John .Painungal House Kongorpilli, Alangad Village.Ernakulam District. 4841954805 ORDER UNDER SECTION 111 CrPC, READ WITH CrPC Whereas it has been made to appear to me by reliable information placed before this Court by the Inspector of Police North Paravur Police Station through the Deputy Superintendent of Police Munambam. I gist of which is given below that you the Counter Petitioner mentioned above is likely to commit breach of peace or do wrong