Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 195 (AP)

Sugumar v. State rep. by Inspector of Police

2001-02-23

MALAI SUBRAMANIAN

body2001
ORDER Malai Subramanian, J. - The petitioners face the proceedings under Section III Cr. P.C. before the Sub- Divisional Magistrate cum Sub collector. Cheranmahadevi. The Executive Magistrate passed a preliminary order under Section III of Cr. P.C. directing the petitioners to show cause as to why they shall not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs. 2,500/- each for-six months to keep peace. 2. The petitioners agitated against the order passed by the Executive Magistrate on the ground that there was no subjective satisfaction and that the instances do not cover an these accused. 3. In so far as the subjective satisfaction of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is concerned he has only categorised the instances and said that he enquired into these instances in the village. No details of his enquiry were placed in that order and the order appears to be a cyclostyled order wherein certain words were fined up. Therefore, the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not reveal his subjective satisfaction that there was likelihood of breach of peace before issuing the order. Therefore, on that ground the order passed of the Executive Magistrate is liable to be quashed. 4. In so far as the instances are concerned incident No.1 says that Johmson and five others assaulted one Nivas on 7-12-1996 at 8-15 a.m. Incident -No. 2 says that one Vivek and two others criminally intimidated and caused injuries with spear on one Selvaraj. The third instance says that somebody cut the rope belonging to one Jeno and destroyed and nobody was named in that instance. With regard to the instance No. 4 also the same allegation of somebody cutting the ropes and destroying it was stated. Instance No. 5 also of the same allegation. Instance No. 6 speaks about the assault of one Jagan by one Suresh and 17 others. Instance No.7 does not reveal any specific incident. 5. On going through all these instances, except the allegation of assault by one Johnson, one Vivek and one Suresh, absolutely no allegation was made against any of the other petitioners. Even in so far as these three persons are concerned, separate crimes were registered. Single instance of criminal offence by these three persons does not warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. Therefore, on that ground also, the order of the Executive Magistrate Is liable to be quashed. 6. Even in so far as these three persons are concerned, separate crimes were registered. Single instance of criminal offence by these three persons does not warrant initiation of proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. Therefore, on that ground also, the order of the Executive Magistrate Is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, the petition stands allowed. The order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Sub Collector stands quashed. Consequently, Crl. M.P. No. 245/2001 is closed. Petition allowed.