AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Kanagaraj, J.—The Learned Government Advocate on the Criminal Side takes notice on behalf of the respondents.
The petition has been filed praying to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the second respondent in M.C. No. 5 of 2002 and quash
the same.
Today, when the matter was taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would lay emphasis that prima facie
the order is illegal in the sense that it is not in the correct form which should be in the shape of a show cause notice; that it should have been issued
as to why in the circumstances of the case for the happenings mentioned therein, the petitioners should not be required to execute either the bond
for their future conduct or for fixing a sum and in the absence of those relevant factors which are to be complied with, are miserably missing in the
preliminary order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karur dated 8-11-2002 made in M.C. No. 5 of
2002 on the file of the second respondent.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would end up his argument laying emphasis that in short the proceeding instituted u/s 107 of
Cr.P.C. shall be in accordance with those requirements envisaged u/s 111 of Cr.P.C., whereas such materials which are required u/s 111 of
Cr.P.C. are lacking in the preliminary order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karur, and therefore, the
order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karur, suffers from patent errors of law and would seek to grant
the relief as sought for.
A careful perusal of the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karur, dated 8-11-2002 made in
M.C. No. 5 of 2002 on the file of the second respondent would clearly indicate that the order is not in the correct format nor to the requirements
of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and therefore, since there is no compliance of such mandatory requirements of law stipulated u/s 111 of Cr.P.C. the
order becomes liable only to be set aside and the same is decided accordingly.
In result,
i. the above Criminal Original Petition succeeds and the same is allowed;
ii. consequently, connected Crl. M.P. Nos. 590 and 591 of 2003 are closed;
iii. the order passed by the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karur, dated 8-11-2002 made in M.C. No. 5 of 2002 on
the file of the second respondent, is set aside;
iv. however, the Revenue Divisional Officer-cum-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karur, is at liberty to pass fresh orders on the same cause of action
following the requirements of Section 111 of Cr.P.C.