Gnanasekar and 64 Others vs State by Inspector of Police, Poonamallee

Thangamant, J.—The Inspector of Police, Poonamallee laid a report in Crime No. 347/90 before the Revenue Divisional Officer,

Kanchipuram seeking initiation of proceedings against first petitioner Gnanasekaran and 65 others alleging that they are Yadhava Caste Hindus and

Vanniyars mostly residing in Anjaneyar Koil Street, Raja Agraharam Street, Judge Chellappa Naicker Street, New Street, Pillaiyar Koil Street and

Vaitheeswaran Koil Street within Poonamalle town panchayat. Instances have come to notice in which they are acting in a manner which affected

public peace and tranquility. They are likely to cause harm to the Harijans of Melma Nagar and disturb public peace in Poonamallee area. On 26-

4-90, in M.C. No. 7/90 on his file the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram passed a preliminary order under S. 111 of Criminal Procedure

Code calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be required to execute a bond for Rs. 500/- each with two sureties for a like sum

to keep peace for a period of one year. The counter petitioner in MC. No. 7/90 now seeks to challenge the said order and pray for calling for the

records in those proceedings and quash the same by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under S.482, Criminal Procedure Code.

In his preliminary order learned Revenue Divisional Officer has mentioned these instances as the basis for his taking action under S.111 of

Criminal Procedure Code.

i) On the night of 5.3.1990 during the temple festival at Perumal Koil Street, Poonamallee the first petitioner Gnanasekaran had indulged in eve

teasing of one Geetha of Melma Nagar. When this was objected to be one Baskaran of Melma Nagar, the first petitioner and some of his

supporters assaulted him at 10-00 P.M. The injured Baskaran gave a complaint in Poonamallee Police Station Crime No. 32/90 under-S. 324

Indian Penal Code. The case is being investigated.

ii) When one Arul Raj of Melma Nagar was on his way to Poonamallee Police Station to ascertain the action taken by the Police on the complaint

of Baskaran the present petitioners belonging to Caste Hindus assaulted him in front of the Government Hospital, Poonamallee. The said Arul Raj

has in his turn preferred a report in Crime No. 324/90 under S. 324 of Indian Penal Code against them.

iii) The second petitioner Sekar assaulted Arul Raj in the Police Station itself at 12:20 P.M. on 6.3.90 for having given a report against the

petitioners. This has resulted in a case being registered against him in Crime No. 325/90 under Ss. 341 and 323 of Indian Penal Code,.

iv) The action of the petitioners 1 and 2 created ill feeling between the caste Hindus and Harijans of Melma Nagar. So the officials arranged a

peace committee meeting on 8.3.90 in which the prominent members of the communities including the petitioners participated. Inspite of the

assurance given in the peace committee meeting Sekar the second petitioner and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and went to

the Tea Shop of one Sridharan and caused injuries to one Gangadharan of Melma Nagar. They also caused damages to the articles in the Tea

Shop. Gangadharan gave a complaint which was registered as Crime No. 325 of 1990 of Poonamallee Police Station under Ss.147, 148, 448,

427, 389 and 506(ii). The case is being investigated.

v) On coming to know of this the Harijans of Melma Nagar went to the residence of Caste Hindus in Poonamallee and attacked them and caused

damage to the properties. They also set fire to the houses and damaged Government Vehicles. Enraged by this the petitioners 66 in number went

to Melma Nagar and assaulted the residents of that place. They also went to Poonamallee Bazaar and set fire to the Fruit stalls and houses owned

by the Harijans of Melma Nagar. They also caused damages to Government Vehicles. One Manivannan has lodged a complaint which has been

registered, as Crime No. 337/90 of Poonamallee Police Station under Ss.147, 148, 437, 326 and 307 Indian Penal Code R/w 7(i)(a) of the

Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Learned counsel for the petitioners assails the preliminary order of the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate under S. 111 of Criminal Procedure

Code mainly on the ground that the instances mentioned in the order are vague. The details such as date, time and place of occurrence are not

given. Item No. 5 is the only instance which covers all the 66 petitioners. One instance is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under S. 107 Criminal

Procedure Code. While the first instance relates to the first petitioner, instance Nos. 3 and 4 are in respect of the second petitioner. In the second

instance covered by Crime No. 324/90 it is generally stated that the counter petitioners were involved. It does not say that all the 66 petitioners

have participated in that instance. As such except first and second petitioners, others are stated to be involved only in the last instance which is as

vague as anything. In the said instance No. 5 neither the time nor the date or exact place of occurrence is given. Even in the last instance which is

registered as Crime No. 337/90, the names of petitioners No. 1 to 5, 41, 61 and 65 alone find a place. So there had been no application of mind

on the part of the learned Magistrate in preparing the order under S. 111 of Criminal Procedure Code,

In Baskaran v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Vikravandi (1984 L.W Cri 87) cited by learned counsel for petitioner the order of the

Magistrate referred only to one incident. With reference to that incident a case was registered and the matter was pending trial. The report did not

say that subsequent to that incident, the feelings between the parties continued to be strained and that the counter petitioners were making

preparations to attack the witnesses or that they were likely to cause disturbance to the peace and tranquility in the village. Natarajan, J. has held

that there was no material on the basis of which the Magistrate could have justly felt satisfied that the counter petitioner should be called upon to

face an enquiry and execute bonds for being bound over to keep peace. He accordingly quashed the proceedings pending before the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Thindivanam.

In Sivasamy Thevar and others v. Inspector of Police, Puliongudi (1990 L.W.C 458) relied on by petitioners, Arunachalam, J. has held that

It is settled law that the notice issued by the Magistrate Under S. 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code must clearly set out the information received

by him and the nature of the case the petitioners have to meet before entering appearance. Before initiation of security proceedings, the Magistrate

will have to satisfy himself about the need of issue of a show cause order. This naturally takes in its fold, the application of mind by the Magistrate

to the facts placed before him and his jurisdiction, in law, to call upon the petitioners to executed bonds....

The order itself must indicate application of mind.

In the present case instance No. 2 is bereft of details such as time and place of the occurrence. It is generally mentioned that counter petitioners

belonging to caste Hindus assaulted Arul Raj. It does not specifically show that all the counter petitioners are involved in the instance. The order

also does not show that the complaint was registered against all of them. The allegations in instance No. 4 are bald. Though the preliminary order

relates to five instances, only the last instance purports to cover all the 66 petitioners. However, the concerned complaint makes mention of only

the names of eight of the present petitioners. Besides it does not give the time and other details. Lack of particulars in these two instances will entail

in prejudices being caused to the petitioners since they will not be in a position to challenge the instances. The notice issued by the Magistrate

under S. 111 of Criminal Procedure Code has not clearly stated the information received by the Magistrate and the nature of the case the

petitioners have to get before entering appearance. Evidently the impugned order has been mechanically passed without application of mind on the

part of the Magistrate.

In any event the alleged instances are stated to have taken place in the year 1990 and it is not the case of learned Public Prosecutor that tension

between the caste Hindus and Harijans in that locality still prevails. I find no necessity on the part of the Magistrate to proceed further in this

connection.

In the result, the proceedings in MC. No. 7/90 on the file of Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanchipuram

are hereby quashed.