G.G. Ravi vs State and Another

S. Palanivelu, J.—The revision petitioner was issued a summons u/s 107 Cr.P.C. The said proceeding is being challenged before this Court.

It is his contention that the summons is motivated due to political consideration and the petitioner is highly placed decent mode of living and

prominent citizen of Vellore and Chairman of G.G.R. College of Engineering and the petitioner earned name among the general public and

particularly students community at large. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. R. Sankarasubbu would contend that inasmuch as the summons

challenged before this Court was a bereft of statutory requirements under law, that the respondent has not adhered to the procedure to be

followed as contemplated in the Criminal Procedure Code, and that the proceedings has been against law.

Repelling this contention, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the 1st respondent police received secret information that due to

the business enmity with Iyyappan and Raghu, the petitioner and his brother G.G. Ramesh are trying to eliminate each other and thereby cause

criminal breach of peace and affect public tranquillity, that the petitioner has involved in four criminal cases and that he is a history sheeted rowdy

and H.S. No. 29/BN.1/1991 is being maintained against him till date in Vellore North Police Station since 1991 and the same is periodically

renewed. It is his further submission that issuing summons u/s 107 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order, that a revision can be filed only against the final

order and hence this revision is not maintainable.

Section 107 Cr.P.C. deals with Security for keeping the peace in other cases. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any

person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of

the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may require such person to show cause

why he should not be ordered to execute a bond. However, summons alone issued u/s 107 Cr.P.C. would not satisfy Section 111 Cr.P.C.

Section 111 Cr.P.C. goes thus:

Order to be made

When a Magistrate acting u/s 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such

Section he shall make an order in writing, 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 class of sureties (if any) required.

As per Section 111 Cr.P.C. it is necessary to require any person to show cause by making an order in writing, narrating the substance of the

information received, amount of bond to be executed, term of bond, number and class of sureties to be furnished. But in this case, there is no

notice by the respondent in writing explaining the information received. But the second respondent has sent only the summons to the petitioner

which does not contain the above said particulars and it also does not certify the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. which is illegal.

Yet another circumstance put forth by the respondent is that the revision is not maintainable in an interlocutory order, since the petitioner

challenged the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. is an interlocutory order. In this context, a Full Bench decision of the Honourable Supreme Court has

to be followed. In State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Others Vs. N.M.T. Joy Immaculate, after referring various judgments Their Lordships

have held that if the objections raised by the accused were upheld the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated, the order was

not interlocutory order and consequently it was revisable. The operative portion of the judgment is as follows:

Same question has recently been considered in K.K. Patel and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another, . In this case a criminal complaint

was filed against the Superintendent of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police alleging commission of several offences under the Indian Penal

Code and also u/s 147-G of the Bombay Police Act. The Metropolitan Magistrate took cognisance of the offence and issued process to the

accused, who on appearance filed a petition for discharge on the ground that no sanction as contemplated by Section 197 Cr.P.C. had been

obtained. The Metropolitan Magistrate dismissed the petition against which a revision was filed before the Sessions Judge, who allowed the same

on the objection raised by the accused based upon Section 197 Cr.P.C. and also Section 161(1) of the Bombay Police Act, which creates a bar

of limitation of one year. The revision preferred by the complainant against the order of discharge was allowed by the High Court on the ground

that the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate rejecting the prayer of the accused to discharge them was an interlocutory order. In the

appeal preferred by the accused, this Court after referring to Amar Nath and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Another, , Madhu Limaye Vs. The

State of Maharashtra, and V.C. Shukla Vs. State through C.B.I., held that in deciding whether an order challenged is interlocutory or not, as for

Section 397(2) of the Code, the sole test is not whether such order was passed during the interim stage. The feasible test is whether by upholding

the objections raised by a party, it would result in culminating the proceedings. If so, any order passed on such objections would not be merely

interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 397(2) of the Code. It was further held that as in the facts of the case, if the objections raised by the

accused were upheld, the entire prosecution proceedings would have been terminated, the order was not an interlocutory order and consequently

it was revisable.

In this case also the objections raised by the petitioner are being accepted by this Court and hence the issuance of summons by the 2nd

respondent is not an interlocutory proceedings. Therefore, the revision is well maintainable. In fine, the revision is allowed, setting aside the

summons in No. B1/1407 of 2013 dated 28.2.2013 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Vellore-9. Connected

Miscellaneous petition is closed.