Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
RAHUL REGHUNATHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.MC 5849 2023
Criminal Law - Quashing Proceedings - Cr.P.C. Sections 107, 111 - The court examined the procedural requirements for initiating proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing the necessity of providing substantive information to the individual affected, leading to the quashing of the initiated proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash ongoing proceedings against them initiated under Section 111(1) of the Cr.P.C. at the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proceedings lacked the necessary substance in the notice issued under Section 107, which is crucial for the accused to defend themselves against allegations.
Issues: Whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 107 was valid given the lack of substantive information provided to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that failure to disclose the substance of the information required under Section 111 renders the proceedings invalid, as it prevents adequate defense by the accused.
Final Decision: The proceedings were quashed due to lack of compliance with legal requirements.
ORDER
The above Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed to quash all further proceedings in MC 126/2023 pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kollam.
2. Petitioner herein is the opposite party in MC 126/2023. In the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent has initiated proceedings under Section 111 (1) of the Cr.P.C. as evident by Annexure A1. Aggrieved by the same, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. This Court perused Annexure A1 order.
The proceedings is initiated based on a solitary case registered against the petitioner. Moreover, the conditions laid down before issuing a notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C. is not complied with. InGirish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another [2009 (4) KHC 929], this Court considered this point in detail. It will be better to extract the relevant portion of the above judgment:
“5. S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure enables an executive Magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit. S.111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under S.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any required, the necessity to setforth the substance of the information' in the order under S.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him.
6. Annexure I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on which he was satisfied that proceedings under S.107 is to be initiated. The fact that petitioners are involved in Crime No. 207/2009 by itself is not a ground, to initiate proceedings, under S. 107. Though past conduct may be a guide to initiate proceedings, on that ground alone proceedings cannot be initiated unless as stated by the Full Bench in Moidu's case (supra) there is an imminent breach of peace warranting initiation of proceedings under S.107 of Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973.
7. When Annexure I order does not disclose the substance of the information which is mandatory, the proceedings initiated can only be quashed. There is substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings were initiated, as petitioners are agitating against a toddy shop which is causing disturbance to the public. S.111 of Code of Criminal Procedure is not intended to be used as a weapon to suppress the legitimate public grievance, as cautioned by this Court in Peethambaran's case (supra). In such circumstances, it is clear that the proceedings was initiated with oblique motive which is only an abuse of process of the Court. Petition is allowed. M. C. No. 220 of 2009 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kozhikode is quashed.”
In the light of the above principle and also going through Annexure A1, I think the proceedings is to be quashed especially for the reason that the same was initiated based on a solitary case registered against the petitioner. But I make it clear that, if there is any continued obstruction from the petit
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
