AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Mala, J.—This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C praying this Court to call for the records of the First Respondent in his proceedings in M.C. No A2/ 4254 2014. dated 13.3.2015 and quash the same as illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Principles of Law.
Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the Respondents 1 & 2 State and the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents 3 to 13 and perused the records.
The Petitioners have come forward with this Petition for quashing the impugned Order passed by the First Respondent directing the "A" party and "B party to appear before him on 13.3.2015 to execute a bond for one year to keep peace in their village and challenging the said Order, the present Petition is filed.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioners would submit that while initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., though the Executive Magistrate must give substance of information received and also he shall not order for joint enquiry of both the groups But here both parties are directed to appear jointly on 13.03 2015 which is against the Principles of Natural Justice. He relied on a decision reported in Palani and others v. The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Pudukkottai, Thoothukudi District and others, 2006 (3) CTC 792. which was followed by this Court and also the Judgment of this Court in G. Paramasivam and others v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate/Revenue Divisional Officer, Madurai and another, 2011 (2) MWN (Cr) 394, and pray for setting aside the proceedings of the First Respondent.
The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side), on instructions, would submit that substance of information has been given in this impugned Order. But he fairly concede that both "A" party and "B" party, who are rival parties, are directed to appear before him on same day on 13.3.2015 at 11 00 a.m. to execute the Bond.
The learned Counsel for the Respondents 3 to 13 has no objection for quashing the impugned proceedings.
Considering the rival submissions and also the decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the First Respondent initiated Section 107 proceedings stating that during the performance of Pongal Festival on 5.5.2012, there was a light between two groups and hence, a case in Crime No 82 of 2014 has been registered on the basis of the Complaint given by "A" party and also a case in Crime No. 83 of 2014 has been registered on the basis of the Complaint given by the "B" party Therefore the substance of information has been given and the only point is that both "A" party and "B" party are directed to appear before him jointly on the same day at the same time, which will cause disturbance of peace in the village.
In the decision reported in Palani and others v. The Inspector of Police, Pudukkottai Police Station, Pudukkottai, Thoothukudi District and others, 2006 (3) CTC 792. this Court has held as under