A.Guru Das vs State – Represented By Public on 3 September, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

Crl.MC.No. 2568 of 2010()


1. A.GURU DAS, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. VENGAYIL
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. STATE - REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.M.SASINDRAN

                For Respondent  :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR

 Dated :03/09/2010

 O R D E R
             M.Sasidharan Nambiar, J.
            --------------------------
              Crl.M.C.No.2568 of 2010
            --------------------------

                       ORDER

Petitioner, against whom Annexure-AI

preliminary order was passed under Section 107 of

Code of Criminal Procedure by the Sub Divisional

Magistrate, Kanhangad, filed this petition under

Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure to quash

Annexure-AI order contending that order is illegal

and unsustainable.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

and learned Public Prosecutor were heard.

3. Annexure-AI order shows that Sub Divisional

Magistrate had initiated proceedings under Section

107 of Code of Criminal Procedure on the

information received from the Sub Inspector of

Police. The information received, as disclosed in

Annexure-A1 order, is that petitioner is a resident

of Kallar Village and an active worker of BJP and

is likely to cause political conflict and disturb

CRMC 2568/10 2

public tranquility of that locality and he is an

accused in C.C.No.784/2008 on the file of Judicial

First Class Magistrate’s Court-I, Hosdrug, taken

cognizance for the offences under Sections 341 and

324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

4. As rightly argued by the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, in Annexure-AI order

it is not disclosed on what basis the Sub Inspector

found that petitioner is likely to disturb public

tranquility in the locality. Annexure-AII final

report submitted by the Sub Inspector, taken

cognizance by the learned Magistrate for the

offences under Sections 341 and 324 of Indian Penal

Code, shows that the incident was on 7.5.2008. As

stated earlier, the offences alleged are only under

Sections 341 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian

Penal Code. Therefore, in addition to the

petitioner, there should be one more accused.

Still, no proceedings is initiated against that

accused. Evidently, proceedings were initiated

CRMC 2568/10 3

because of the said incident. When Annexure-AI

order does not disclose any other basis for

initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Code of

Criminal procedure, it can only be found that

proceedings were initiated without any basis.

Hence, petition is allowed. Annexure-AI order

is quashed.

3rd September, 2010 (M.Sasidharan Nambiar, Judge)
tkv