AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pratap Singh, J.—The counter petitioners in M.C. No. 17/93 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal have filed this petition under
S.482, Crl.P.C. to call for the records in the above case and to quash the same.
Short facts are: The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal has passed the impugned order under S.111, Cr.P.C. read with 107, Cr.P.C. against
the counter petitioners citing one incident. Furthermore, under S.116(3), Crl.P.C. he directed the counter petitioners to execute interim bond for
Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties each of similar amount.
Mr. R. Thirugnanam, learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that on a single incident a proceeding under S.111 Cr.P.C. read with 107,
Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated and this court repeatedly held so. He would further submit that, interim bond is not warranted by the proceeding under
S.116(3), Cr.P.C. and a bond under S.116(3), Cr.P.C. can be directed to be executed only after enquiry and because of the above two infirmities
the proceedings are liable to be quashed. I have heard the learned counsel representing the Public Prosecutor for Pondicherry.
I have carefully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel. The impugned order under S.111, Cr.P.C. shows that only one
incident has been cited. This court has repeatedly held that on the basis of a single incident a proceeding under S.111, Cr.P.C. read with 107,
Cr.P.C. cannot be instituted and if so instituted it is vitiated. On this ground, this proceedings are liable to be quashed.
Regarding the second ground, Mr. Thirugnanam would rely upon Patel Uka Naran Vs. Kalyan Karsan and Another, , in which the Apex Court
had occasion to consider that, whether enquiring into the truth of the information, Magistrate could ask the petitioner to give interim bond for good
conduct. In Para 17, the Apex Court has held as follows:
It appears to us that the powers of the Magistrate to ask for an interim bond were not properly exercised in this case and consequently the order
to the petitioner to furnish interim bond could not be made. That stage had not been reached under the scheme of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The Magistrate could only ask for an interim bond if he could not complete the enquiry and ''during the completion of the enquiry postulates a
commencement of the enquiry, which means commencing of a trial according to the summons procedure. It was not given to the Magistrate to
postpone the case and hear nobody and yet ask the petitioners to furnish a bond for good conduct. The Magistrate should have made at least
some effort to get a statement from Brij Mohan or Ved ''Murti Bhatt or any of the witnesses named in the challan. Nothing of this kind was done.
Therefore the proceedings for asking for an interim bond were completely illegal.
In Thenmalaiyandi v. State through the Inspector of Police, Periyar [1983 L.W. (Cri.) 313] Justice S. Natarajan (as he then was) had held that
a joint enquiry can be held only in respect of the members or association of the same group, but not against the members of two rival groups. In
that case the impugned order was a common order against the members of the two parties and they were called upon to face joint enquiry. The
learned Judge had further held that, even before the enquiry has started, the Magistrate has passed the order for execution of interim bonds and
this is patently against law and on those grounds the order was quashed. I am in total agreement with the view of the learned Judge.
In view of the above, the proceedings in M.C. No. 17/93 are liable to the quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed and all further
proceedings in M.C. No. 17/93 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Karaikal shall stand quashed.