IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl MC No. 209 of 2007()
1. MUHAMMED ARIF (18 YEARS),
... Petitioner
2. SUHAIL F. (19 YEARS),
3. NAZEER M. (19 YEARS),
4. NOUFAL B.,
5. JEMMI @ MOHAMMED SAMEER (19 YEARS),
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice R.BASANT
Dated :29/10/2007
O R D E R
R.BASANT, J
------------------------------------
Crl.M.C.No.209 of 2007
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 25th day of January, 2007
ORDER
The petitioners are counter petitioners 1 to 5 in a proceedings
initiated under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Preliminary orders have been
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate after following the procedure
prescribed by law. In the preliminary order it is alleged that two
crimes have been registered against the petitioners and they are
indulging in acts which are likely to cause breach of the peace and
disturb public tranquility in the locality. The allegation is that the
petitioners have committed offences, inter alia, punishable under
Sections 3 of the SC/ST (PA) Act. The order only directs the
petitioners to appear and show cause before the Sub Divisional
Magistrate as to why they should not be called upon to execute bonds
for keeping the peace. The petitioners are not visited with any
specific adverse order. They are only called upon to explain why such
orders should not be passed against them. Ordinarily and normally, I
would expect the petitioners to appear before the Sub Divisional
Magistrate and raise their contentions. This does not mean that in an
appropriate case, where failure/miscarriage of justice is apprehended
or such possibility is perceived, this Court cannot invoke the powers
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. But that must be an appropriate and
exceptional case and compelling reasons must be shown to exist.
Crl.M.C.No.209 of 2007 2
2. What are the reasons in this case ? The first contention is
that the allegations are false. That dispute cannot be authentically
resolved by this Court at the moment and with the available inputs.
The second contention is that the alleged offences are primarily under
Section 3 of the SC/ST (PA) Act. They cannot be reckoned as
offences which are likely to occasion a breach of the peace and
disturbance of public tranquility. The records show that the relevant
crimes are registered, inter alia, under Sections 341 and 323 I.P.C
also. But I will assume for a moment that only allegations under
Section 3 of the SC/ST (PA) Act are raised against the petitioners in
the crime. Even then, likelihood of commission of offence under
Section 3 of SC/ST (PA) Act, cannot be reckoned as insufficient to
attract proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. It would be
presumptuous for the Court to now assume that the commission of the
offences under Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (PA) Act is not likely to
disturb the public tranquility or occasion a breach of the peace.
3. I shall carefully refrain from making any observations on
merits on the disputed questions of fact. Suffice it to say that I do not
find any circumstances which would justify the invocation of the
powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C in favour of the petitioners to
prematurely terminate the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C
initiated against them. They must appear before the Sub Divisional
Magistrate and raise their contentions.
Crl.M.C.No.209 of 2007 3
4. This Crl.M.C is, in these circumstances, dismissed. I may
hasten to observe that the dismissal of this Crl.M.C will not in any way
fetter the rights of the petitioners to raise all appropriate and
necessary contentions before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
(R.BASANT, JUDGE)
rtr/-