An order under Sections 107 and 111 Cr.P.C. must demonstrate subjective satisfaction and substantial evidence of threat to public peace.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.GIRISH

TH

TUESDAY, THE 20 DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 30TH POUSHA, 1947

CRL.MC NO.2382 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.02.2020 IN MC NO.16 OF

2020 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, IDUKKI

PETITIONER:

ANEESH ABRAHAM

AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.ABRAHAM,

KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE, KOLLAPUZHA, VELLANTHANAM,

UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA, PIN CODE 685 595.

BY ADVS.

SHRI.SHIBU JOSEPH

SMT.K.M.TINTU

RESPONDENTS:

1 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE OFFICE,

CIVIL STATION, IDUKKI, PIN CODE 685 603.

2 STATE OF KERALA,

REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

HIGH COURT OF KERALA.

BY ADV.

SRI.SUDHEER G., PP

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION

ON 20.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE

FOLLOWING:

G. GIRISH, J.

----------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2382 of 2020 --------------------------------------

Dated this the 20^th day of January, 2026

ORDER

Annexure I - order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Idukki, on 13.02.2020 in M.C.No.16 of 2020 under the provisions of Sections 107 and 111 Cr.P.C., are under challenge in this petition filed by the counter petitioner therein under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 2. In the aforesaid order, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has indicated that he was of the firm opinion from a report received from the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimannoor, that the petitioner herein is likely to commit breach of peace and disturb tranquility in that place, and hence it is necessary to proceed against him under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned order was passed directing the petitioner herein to appear before the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, and to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties each for the like amount to keep peace for a period of one year.

3. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate is not in conformity with the principles of law contained in the aforesaid provisions.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor representing the State of Kerala.

5. The substance of information said to have been received by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate from the Sub Inspector of Police, Karimannoor, is stated as follows in the impugned order :

“a) The counter petitioners are the residents of Thodupuzha Thaluk, within the jurisdiction of this court.

b) The counter petitioner is reported to be involved in acts of violence and causing breach of public peace and thereby creating disturbances to the public tranquility in the locality of Pannoor, Vellamthanam area.

c) The counter petitioner is anticipated to commit acts of violence and causing breach of public peace inside the locality regularly and at any time in the future in connection with dispute over church rights.

d) Besides the counter petitioner is involved in (1)-Cr.No.08/20 U/S 447, 427, 188, 294(b), 34 IPC (break down the Compound wall of the Church and insulting SebiScaria, Konnanal, House).”

6. It is pertinent to note that the one and only crime, in which the petitioner is said to have been involved, is stated under clause (d) above as Crime No.08/2020 under Sections 447, 427, 188 and 294(b) IPC read with Section 34 IPC. Though it is stated in clause (b) of the substance of information extracted above that the petitioner is involved in acts of violence and causing breach of public peace and creating disturbances to public tranquility in the locality of Pannoor, Vellamthanam area, there is absolutely nothing stated in the aforesaid order to substantiate the said accusation against the petitioner.

7. It is apparent from Annexure I - order that the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate relied on the aforesaid report of the Sub Inspector of