HIGH COURT OF KERALA
EAPEN K. THOMAS
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)This petition is filed against the order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate of Chengannur under S.117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure calling upon the petitioners to execute interim bonds pending the enquiry initiated against them under S.107 Crl. P. C. On a report received from the Sub Inspector of Police Chengannur that the petitioners had criminally intimidated and caused hurt to witnesses Nos. 1 and 2 in the police charge and are likely to do wrongful acts which might occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity, the learned Magistrate was satisfied that action should be taken under S.107 Cr. P. C. and he drew up proceedings under S.112 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 & the number of sureties required. The Sub Inspector had also reported that immediate measures are necessary to prevent a breach of peace and had prayed for action under S.117(3). On a perusal of the report filed by the Sub Inspector the petitions and the endorsement thereon and after examining the Sub Inspector the Magistrate was satisfied that immediate action was really required and ordered the petitioners to execute interim bonds. The present revision is preferred against that order directing the execution of the interim bonds.
(2.)Learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter rather elaborately and contended that in this domestic quarrel between brothers and sisters the police ought not to have interfered at all, that the action taken is mala fide and the court ought not to have accepted the one sided report of the police and initiated proceedings, that they are an abuse of the process of the court and therefore the entire proceedings should be quashed either under S.439 or 561A Cr. P. C.
(3.)There is no doubt that action taken under S.112 of the Code constitutes a judicial act and therefore the Magistrate should not act arbitrarily. There must be information of a nature which would convince the Magistrate that there is likelihood of a breach of the peace. But it is impossible to formulate any hard and fast rule with regard to the nature of the information on which the Magistrate may feel satisfied and act. What is reasonably sufficient to satisfy the Magistrate would depend on the peculiar facts of each case. Whether it is necessary in the interests of keeping the peace to take security from certain person or persons is a question which primarily concerns the Executive First Class Magistrate and the police. At this stage this court cannot go into the question whether the police were well advised or not in reporting to the Magistrate for action and whether their action is mala fide as contended by the petitioners. If this court were to interfere with the action of the police which action is in consonance with the powers conferred on them by law the safety of the community would be in peril.
The High Court has undoubtedly power to quash proceedings either when the notice issued does not comply with the requirements of the section or when there is prima facie no materials to take action or to prevent the abuse of the process of the court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But they must be cases where the petitioner can justly contend that on the face of the record the proceedings taken against him are illegal and unsustainable in law. Learned counsel has not been able to satisfy me that this is such a case.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.