IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16/07/2003
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.KANAGARAJ
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.22406 OF 2003
and
Crl.M.P.NO.6366 of 2003
1.Savariyappan
2.Elayappan
3.V.P.John
4.K.Mani
5.S.N.Taj
6.Javid
7.Manoharan
8.Subramani
9.Pounesan
10.Kaveri
11.Govindaraj
12.Royappan
13.Francis
14.Irudhayarayan
15.Afsal
16.Dayalan
17.Basheer
18.S.B.Babu
19.Appadurai
20.Ravi
21.Jayaraman
22.Durai Raj
23.Rajan
24.Mohammed Moosa
25.Francis Xavier
26.Chandran ... Petitioners
-Vs-
State, rep.by
The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri Town Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.1345/2002) ... Respondent
Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure for the relief as stated therein.
For petitioners : Mr.M.Ravindran
For respondent : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,
Govt.Advocate(Crl.side)
:O R D E R
The petitioners have brought forth the above Criminal Original
Petition, to call for the records in M.C.No.364 of 2002 on the file of the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, and
quash the same.
2. The case of the petitioners is that, the first petitioner is the
President, the second petitioner is the Treasurer and other petitioners are
the Members of the Krishnagiri Taluk Lorry Owners Association, situated at
No.59, Car Street, Krishnagiri. A dispute arose between the President and the
Secretary, when the first petitioner had tried to initiate action against the
Members, who had not paid the debts on purchase of spares from the shop owned
by the Association and to deny voting right to the defaulters of annual
subscription to the association, which was to be brought in the agenda of the
Annual General Body Meeting.
3. It is the further case of the petitioners that while the
association had sought for the permission to conduct the meeting at
Jayalaxshmi Kalyana Mandapam, Madras Road, Krishnagiri on 21.07.2002, the
other faction approached the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, for an order
of injunction, restraining the association to hold the meeting, which was
dismissed by the said Court; that parallel to that, two FIRs were registered
by the respondent police in Crime No.1344 of 2002 under Section 145 Cr.P.C.
and Crime No.1345 of 2002 under Section 107 Cr.P.C. and in the meanwhile, the
very meeting itself was held at the association premises on 21.07.2002 and
therefore, any continuation of the proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C.
without any basis and need by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate and
Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri, in M.C.No.364 of 2002 would amount to
an abuse of process of law and the same is liable to be quashed.
4. While so, the petitioners were served with the notice of
the proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. based on the report of the
Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri Police Station, and hence, the SubDivisional
Magistrate, initiating the said proceeding, has issued notice calling for the
petitioners to appear before him on 21.10.2002 as per notice dated 02.09.2002
in M.C.No.364 of 2002 and the petitioners have filed the above Criminal
Original Petition testifying the validity of the same on grounds such as that
the case has been registered out of jurisdiction by the respondent regarding
the dispute amongst the parties; that the issue involved would neither fall
under the jurisdiction of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagiri, nor the
Krishnagiri Town Police; that the instance referred to in the impugned notice
will not amount to initiating action under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.; that the
impugned notice is not in consonance under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. etc.,
ultimately seeking for quashing the proceeding initiated by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Krishnagiri, against the petitioners.
5. When the above Criminal Original Petition was taken up for
consideration in the presence of the learned counsel for the petitioners and
the learned Government Advocate on the Criminal side, taking notice on behalf
of the respondent, learned counsel for the petitioners would highlight that
the order passed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. in the form of a show cause
notice calling for the appearance of the petitioners is not an order passed in
compliance of the warranting provisions of law nor is it in the format and
therefore, the order only becomes liable to be quashed in limine and
therefore, would pray for the same.
6. On the part of the respondent, the learned Government
Advocate also has nothing to say against the arguments advanced on the part of
the learned counsel for the petitioners, since it pertains to the legality and
therefore, this Court is inclined to pass the following order.
7. In consideration of the facts and circumstances,
encircling the notice issued by the Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate under
Section 107 of Cr.P.C. calling for the petitioners to appear before him,
having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate contra, what
comes to be known is that the impugned notice issued by the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Krishnagiri, is neither in the accepted format nor has it been
prepared in a constructive manner adopting the necessary and warranting
procedures established under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, no mention
need be necessary that the notice impugned issued to the petitioners is an
inconsistent and improper one and the same only becomes liable to be quashed.
8. Time and again, this Court has insisted on the operative
ingredients covered under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. to be complied with thereby
‘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 clause of sureties (if any) required’ and without these vital
informations forming part of the notice, it cannot be a valid notice in law
and hence, the notice impugned herein issued to the petitioners under Section
107 of Cr.P.C. is without compliance of the operative portions of Section 111
of Cr.P.C. and illegal and only becomes liable to be quashed.
In result,
(i) the above Criminal Original Petition succeeds and the same is
allowed;
(ii)the impugned notice issued to the petitioners in M.C.No.364/2002
by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Krishnagiri, is hereby quashed;
iii) however, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional
Officer, Krishnagiri, will be at liberty to issue a fresh notice in compliance
of the requirements of Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
iv) Consequently, the connected Crl.M.P.is closed.
Index: Yes
Internet: Yes
dixit
To
1.The Inspector of Police,
Krishnagiri Town Police Station,
Dharmapuri District.
(Crime No.1345/2001)
2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.