AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Maheswaran, J.—These two petitions have been filed u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order passed in M.C.
No. 4 of 1983 u/s 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on the file of the Executive Second Class Magistrate, Ponneri.
On the basis of a report sent by the Inspector of Police, Ennore Circle, a preliminary order was passed by the Executive Second Class
Magistrate, Ponneri, u/s 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, on 21st December, 1983 directing the A Party and the B Party to appear before
him and to show cause why the Petitioners should not be required to enter into a bond for Rs. 1,000/- and also give surety for a like sum for a
term of one year. This order is now challenged before me on two grounds, namely that the order should not club the A Party and the B party
together in the same proceeding, and secondly on the ground that details of the information were (sic) not furnished.
Before proceeding to deal with the contention, certain facts have to be narrated. Pulicat Lake in Chingleput District is a place where prawns are
available in abundance during the season. The Fishermen living nearby gather these prawns in Pulicat Lake during the season. They go to the sea
rarely when the Lake becomes dry. The fishermen living on the sea-shore also come to Pulicat Lake for gathering prawns. There were quarrels
and disputes on account of this between the two groups. When such disputes arise, leaders constitute a peace committee and impose certain
conditions which are not adhered to. According to the Executive Magistrate, from 31st October, 1983 there has been a dispute between the A
and B Parties in respect of the right of fishing in the Pulicat Lake and also in the Mugathuvaram between Sembasipalli-cuppam and
Goonancuppam. Notwithstanding the advice by the police, the parties are creating trouble. It is in these circumstances that the Inspector of Police.
Ennore, laid the information u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Magistrate opined that there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the counter-Petitioners and required the counter-Petitioners to show
cause why they should not be ordered to execute a bond, as aforesaid.
A perusal of this order shows that the Magistrate has not given any material details relating to the incidents which led the Inspector of Police,
Ennore, to lay the information u/s 107, Code of Criminal Procedure In Thirumalaiappa Gounder alias C. Chinnaswamy and others In Re 1981
L.W. (Crl.) 106. I have pointed out that a notice u/s 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has to satisfy a double test. The first is that the notice
must furnish all the information which is laid against a person or persons, and the second is, before issuing a notice, the Magistrate has to satisfy
himself that the situation calls for issuing of a show cause order. There is nothing in the preliminary order to indicate that the Magistrate has made
an objective assessment about the truth and urgency of the information laid before him. Merely mentioning or extracting the relevant section of the
Code of Criminal Procedure is not sufficient. The order does not contain any information which is likely to cause breach of peace. No instance has
been mentioned. Therefore, the first contention is well founded.
In this proceeding both the A and B Parties are clubbed together. They are members of hostile groups. This Court-in Sadayan and Ors. v.
Paramasivam and Ors. 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 218 has taken the view that two opposing parties to a proceeding u/s 107 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, cannot be proceeded against and bound over in one and the same proceeding. The same view is expressed in K.P. Murugesan and 9$
others v. State by Inspector of Police, Keeranur, Palani Taluk, and Ors. 1983 L.W. (Crl.) 251. The order is, therefore, clearly vitiated and has to
be quashed on this ground also.
For the above reasons the order in M.C. No. 4 of 1983 on the file of the Taluk Executive Second Class Magistrate and Tahsildar, Ponneri, is
quashed. However, the Executive Magistrate can pass separate orders afresh against the members of the two parties and proceed with the
enquiry, if the situation warrants, and after furnishing all details of information.