Rajaram Reddiar and 17 Others vs State by Inspector of Police Ulundurpet (Thirunavalur Police Station)

Pratap Singh, J.—This petition coming on for hearing upon perusing the petition and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. C.S. Thansekaran

Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr. E. Raja Government Advocate on behalf of the State, the Court made the following order:

Counter petitioners in M.C. No. 110/89 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, have filed this petition

u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the same.

Short facts are: The Sub Divisional Magistrate & Revenue Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur had passed a preliminary order u/s 111 Cr.P.C. acting

u/s 107 Cr.P.C. citing two instance. To quash the same, this petition is filed.

Mr. C.S. Dhanasekarn, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that two instances are cited and the first incident relates to

counter petitioners 1 to 18 and the second incident relates to counter petitioners 1, 2, 17 and 18 that regarding the counter petitioners 3 to 16,

there is only one incident and regarding counter petitioners 1, 2, 17 and 18, there are two instances; that this court had repeatedly held that by

citing one instance against the counter petitioner, a proceeding u/s 107 Cr.P.C. cannot be initiated and in view of the above, the proceedings

against the counter petitioners 3 to 16 are liable to be quashed. He would further submit that when the order is initiated with regard to the counter

petitioners 3 to 16, for the reasons stated above, that would amount to non-application of mind on the part of learned Magistrate and while so the

entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. He would further state that the impugned order reads as if learned Magistrate has already come to a

conclusion end that order acting u/s 107 Cr.P.C. stipulates only the opinion of the Magistrate that there was likelihood of breach of peace and on

that ground it is vitiated.

I have heard Mr. Raja, learned Government Advocate on the above aspects.

I have carefully considered the submissions made by rival counsel I am clear that both the submissions made by learned counsel for the

petitioners are well founded. One instance by itself cannot be occasion for initiating the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. Counter petitioners 3 to 16 re

being proceeded only for one instance, and that cannot be sustained. Regarding the others, there are only four counter petitioners and when the

proceedings are quashed as against the others, the proceedings against the remaining four cannot be sustained because the first act would reveal

the non-application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate, Further more, learned Magistrate had come to a definite conclusion that

information reveals that there was disturbance to public peace and the life of the public. What is required is that in his opinion sufficient grounds

must exist for proceeding again the counter petitions on the ground that there was likelihood of breach of peace and disturbance to public

tranquillity or to do any wrongful act, such opinion is not explicit in the impugned order. On that ground also, the proceedings are able to be

quashed.

In the result, the petition is allowed, and all further proceedings in M.C. No. 110/89 on the file of Sub Divisional Magistrate & Revenue

Divisional Officer, Tirukoilur, shall stand quashed.