1. STATE OF KERALA,
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KERALA, COCHIN - 31.
2. SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, THALASSERY P.O. THALASSERY, KANNUR - 670101
3. S.I OF POLICE,
PAYANGADI POLICE STATION, KANNUR - 670303.
R1 TO R3 BY PUBLIC
PROSECUTOR SMT. P.MAYA
O R D
E R
Counters petitioners
in the proceedings initiated by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery under
Section
107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') namely
M.C.Nos.157, 159, 158, 184, 183, 138, 202, 188, 203, 204, 189, 187, 141, 205, 206
and 240 of 2013, 18, 16, 15, 17, 14, 22, 23, 21, 2, 3, 35, 24 and 4 of 2014 respectively
have filed these petitions to quash the proceedings under Section 482 of Code Criminal
Procedure.
2. Since the set of
facts in all these cases deal with a common
Question of law regarding the initiation
of proceedings by the authorities under Section 107 to 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure
and irregularities in the proceedings
all these cases have been taken together
for consideration on a common question of law raised in all these matters and disposed
of by a common judgment.
3 In all these cases,
the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery has initiated proceedings against the
petitioners under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure and passed an order
under Section 111 of the Code requesting them to execute a bond under Section 109
of Code of Criminal Procedure which is being challenged by the petitioners. In all
these cases, it was mentioned in the impugned preliminary order that the Sub Divisional
Magistrate had received a report from the Station House Officer of the concerned
Police Station apprehending involvement of these petitioners in certain criminal
activities and causing public tranquility and disturbing peace and wanted the Sub
Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal
Procedure. In all these cases, except mentioning the case numbers and section of
the offences, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, without mentioning the substance of
information and the reason for satisfaction, had issued a stereo typed order requesting
the petitioners to execute a bond to keep peace and order in the locality for a
particular period or to show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute
bond as aforesaid which are being challenged by the petitioners by filing the above
petitions.
4. Before going into
the facts of the case, I may consider the relevant provisions of the Code regarding
the procedure to be followed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate before initiating
proceedings and issuing a preliminary order requesting the counter petitioners to
execute the bond and also some precedents relevant on this aspect.
5.
Chapter VIII of
Code of Criminal Procedure deals with security for keeping the peace and for good
behaviour.
Section 106 to 120 deals with the procedure and the circumstances under
which the proceedings will have to be initiated etc.,
which reads as follows:
"106. Security
for keeping the peace on conviction:-
(1) When a Court of Session or Court of a
Magistrate of the first class convicts a person of any of the offences specified
in sub-section (2) or of abetting any such offence and is of opinion that it is
necessary to take security from such person for keeping the peace, the Court may,
at the time of passing sentence on such person, order him to execute a bond, with
or without sureties, for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding three
years, as it thinks fit.
(2) The offences
referred to in sub-section (1) are-
(a) any offence punishable under Chapter VIII
of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), other than an offence punishable under section
153A or section 153B or section 154 thereof;
(b) any offence which consists of,
or includes, assault or using criminal force or committing mischief;
(c) any offence
of criminal intimidation;
(d) any other offence which caused, or was intended or
known to be likely to cause, a breach of the peace.
(3) If the conviction
is set aside on appeal or otherwise, the bond so executed shall become void.
(4) An order under
this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by a Court when exercising
its powers of revision.
107. Security for
keeping the peace in other cases:-
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information
that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public
tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the
peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such
person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without
sureties, for keeping the peace of such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate
thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings
under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the
place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his
local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to
commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful
act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
108. Security for
good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters:-
(1) When an Executive
Magistrate receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction any
person who, within or without such jurisdiction,-
(i) either orally
or in writing or in any other manner, intentionally disseminates or attempts to
disseminate or abets the dissemination of,-
(a) any matter
of the publication of which is punishable under section 124A or section 153A or
section 153B or section 295A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or
(b) any matter
concerning a Judge acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official
duties which amounts to criminal intimidation or defamation under the Indian Penal
Code (45 of 1860)
(ii) makes, produces,
publishes or keeps for sale, imports, exports, conveys, sells, lets to hire, distributes,
publicly exhibits or in any other manner puts into circulation any obscene matter
such as is referred to in section 292 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), and
the Magistrate is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, the
Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties,
for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate
thinks fit.
(2) No proceedings
shall be taken under this section against the editor, proprietor, printer or publisher
of any publication registered under, and edited, printed and published in conformity
with, the rules and laid down in the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 (25
of 1867), with reference to any matter contained in such publication except by the
order or under the authority of the State Government or some officer empowered by
the State Government in this behalf.
109. Security for
good behaviour from suspected persons.-
When an Executive Magistrate receives information
that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taking precautions to conceal
his presence and that there is reason to believe that he is doing so with a view
to committing a cognizable offence, the Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter
provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute
a bond, with or without sureties, for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding
one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
110. Security for
good behaviour from habitual offenders.-
When an Executive Magistrate receives information
that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who
(a) is by habit
a robber, house-breaker, thief, or forger, or
(b) is by habit
a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or
(c) habitually
protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property,
or
(d) habitually
commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping,
abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter
XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under section 489A, section 489B,
section 489C or section 489D of that Code, or
(e) habitually
commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of, offences, involving
a breach of the peace, or
(f) habitually
commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of-
(i) any offence
under one or more of the following Acts, namely:-
(a) the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
(b) the Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (46 of 1973)
(c) the Employees'
Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, (19 of 1952);
(d) the Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);
(e) the Essential
Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955)
(f) the Untouchability
(Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);
(g) the Customs
Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);
(h) the Foreigners
Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) or
(ii) any offence
punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering
or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or
(g) is so desperate
and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the
community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such
person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties,
for his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate
thinks fit.
111. Order to be
made.-
When a Magistrate acting under Section 107, section 108, section 109 or section
110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section,he
shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance for the information
received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term of which it is to be in
force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any) required.
112. Procedure
in respect of person present in Court.-
If the person in respect of whom such order
is made is present in Court, it shall be read over to him, or, if he so desires,
the substance thereof shall be explained to him.
113. Summons or
warrant in case of person not so present.-
If such person is not present in Court,
the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring him to appear, or when such person
is in custody, a warrant directing the officer in whose custody he is to bring him
before the Court:
114. Copy of order
to accompany summons or warrant.-
Every summons or warrant issued under section
113 shall be accompanied by a copy of the order made under section 111, and such
copy shall be delivered by the officer serving or executing such summons or warrant
to the person served with, or arrested under, the same.
115. Power to dispense
with personal attendance.-
The Magistrate may, if he sees sufficient cause, dispense
with the personal attendance of any person called upon to show cause why he should
not be ordered to execute a bond for keeping the peace or for good behaviour and
may permit him to appear by a pleader.
116. Inquiry as
to truth of information.-
(1) When an order
under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person in Court,
or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate n compliance with,
or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate
shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has
been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
(2) Such inquiry
shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed
for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons-cases.
(3) After the commencement,
and before the completion, of the inquiry under sub-section (1) the Magistrate,
if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach
of peace or disturbance of the public tranquility or the commission of any offence
or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the
person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute a
bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour
until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond
is execute or, in default of execution, until the inquiry in concluded:
(4) For the purposes
of this section the fact that a person is an habitual offender or is so desperate
and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the
community may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise.
(5) Where two or
more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may
be dealt with in the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just.
(6) The inquiry
under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date
of its commencement, and if such inquriy is not so completed, the proceedings under
this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for
special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs:
(7) Where any direction
is made under sub-section (6) permitting the continuance of proceedings, the Sessions
Judge may, on an application made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction
if he is satisfied that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse.
117. Order of give
security.-
If, upon such inquiry, it is proved that it is necessary for keeping
the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the case may be, that the person in
respect of whom the inquiry is made should execute a bond, with or without sureties,
the Magistrate shall make an order accordingly:
118. Discharge
of person informed against.-
If, an inquiry under section 116, it is not proved
that it is necessary for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour, as the
case may be, that the person in respect of whom the inquiry is made, should execute
a bond, the Magistrate shall make an entry on the record to that effect, ad if such
a person is in custody only for the purpose of the inquiry, shall release him, or,
if such person is not in custody, shall discharge him.
119. Commencement
of period for which security is required.-
(1) If any person, in respect of whom
an order requiring security is made under section 106 or section 117, is, at the
time such order is made, sentenced to, or undergoing a sentence of, imprisonment,
the period for which such security is required shall commence on the expiration
of such sentence.
(2) In other cases such period shall commence on the date of such
order unless the Magistrate, for sufficient reason, fixes a later date.
120. Contents of
bond.-
The bond to be executed by any such person shall bind him to keep the peace
or to be of good behaviour, as the case may be, and in the latter case the commission
or attempt to commit, for the abatement of, any offence punishable with imprisonment,
wherever it may be committed, is a breach of the bond."
6. Form 12, 13 &
14 of Schedule II of the Code deal with the nature of things to be mentioned in
the bond and summons which reads as follows:
Form
No.12
BOND
TO KEEP THE PEACE
(See
sections 106 and 107)
WHEREAS
I, ............ (name) inhabitant of ......... (place), have been called upon to
enter into a bond to keep the peace for the term of ..... or until the completion
of the inquiry in the matter of ..... now pending in the Court of ....., I hereby
bind myself not to commit a breach of the peace, or do any act that may probably
occasion a breach of the peace, during the said term or until the completion of
the said inquiry and, in case of my making default therein, I hereby bind myself
to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees......
Dated,
this ............ day of ..........., 20....
(Signature)
Form
No.13
BOND
FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR
(See
Sections 108, 109 and 110)
WHEREAS
I, ............. (name), inhabitant of (place) ........, have been called upon to
enter into a bond to be of good behaviour to Government and all the citizens of
India for the term of ...... (state the period) or until the completion of the inquiry
in the matter of ...... now pending in the Court of ......, I hereby bind myself
to be of good behaviour to Government and all the citizens of India during the said
term or until the completion of the said inquiry; and ' in case of may making default
therein, I hereby bind myself to forfeit to Government the sum of rupees .....
Dated,
this ....... day of ........., 20....
(Signature)
(Where
a bond with sureties is to be executed, add....)
We
do hereby declare ourselves sureties for the above -named ....... that he will be
of good behaviour to Government and all the citizens of India during the said term
or until the completion of the said inquiry; and, in case of his making default
therein, we bind ourselves, jointly and severally to forfeit to Government the sum
of rupees.....
Dated,
this ........ day of ........., 20....
(Signature)
Form
No.14
SUMMONS
ON INFORMATION OF A PROBABLE BREACH OF THE PEACE
(See
section 113)
To
............... of ............
WHEREAS
it has been made to appear to me by credible information that...... (state the substance
of the information), and that you are likely to commit a breach of the peace (or
by which act a breach of the peace will probably be occasioned), you are hereby
required to attend in person (or by a duly authorised agent) at the office of the
Magistrate of ...... on the ......... day of 20....... at ten O' Clock in the forenoon,
to show cause why you should not be required to enter into a bond for rupees ......[when
sureties are required, add, and also to give security by the bond of one (or two,
as the case may be) surety (or sureties) in the sum of rupees ..........(each if
more than one)] that you will keep the peace for the term of .......
Dated,
this .......... day of........, 20....
(Seal of the Court)
(Signature)
7.
Section 111 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure says that, when a magistrate acting under Section
107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 deems it necessary to require any person
to show cause under such Section, he shall make an order in writing setting forth
the substances of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed,
the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and the class
of sureties if any required. So, it is clear from this that before initiating proceedings,
the magistrate has to pass an order satisfying himself regarding the existence of
an apprehension of iminent breach of peace likely to be committed by the counter
petitioners and to prevent such breach of peace or tranquility, they must be asked
to execute bond for a particular period to avoid such breach of peace or tranquility
in that locality.
8. In the decision
reported in
Madhu Limaye and another Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and
others [AIR 1971 (SC) 2486]
the Constitution Bench of Supreme Court of India dealt
with the safe guards to be provided before initiating proceedings under the above
provisions and this has been considered in length in Paragraphs. 33, 34, 35, 36
& 37 of the decision which reads as follows:
"33. The gist
of S.107 may now be given. It enables certain specified classes of Magistrates to
make an order calling upon a person to show cause why he should not be ordered to
execute a bond, with or without sureties for keeping the peace for such period not
exceeding one year as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix. The condition of taking
action is that the Magistrate is informed and he is of opinion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or
disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion
a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility. The Magistrate can proceed
if the person is within his jurisdiction or the place of the apprehended breach
of the peace or disturbance is within the local limits of his jurisdiction. The
section goes on to empower even a Magistrate not empowered to take action, to record
his reason for acting, and then to order the arrest of the, person (if not already
in custody or before the court) with a view to sending him before a Magistrate empowered
to deal with the case, together with a copy of his reason. The Magistrate before
whom such a person is sent may in his discretion detain such person in custody pending
further action by him.
34. The section
is aimed at persons, who cause a reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead
to a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquility. This is an instance
of preventive justice which the courts are intended to administer. This provision
like the preceding one is in aid of orderly society and seeks to nip in the bud
conduct subversive of the pace and public tranquility. For this purpose Magistrate
are invested with large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of public
peace and order. Therefore the jurisdiction for such provisions is claimed by the
State to be in the function of the State which embraces not only the punishment
of offenders but, as far as possible, the prevention of offences.
35. Both the sections
are counter-parts of the same policy, the first applying when by reason of the conviction
of a person, his past conduct leads to an apprehension for the further and the second
applying where the Magistrate, on information, is of the opinion that unless prevented
from so acting, a person is likely to act to the detriment of the public peace and
public tranquility. The argument is that these sections (more particularly S.107)
are destructive of freedom of the individual guaranteed by Art.19 (1) (a) (b) )
and (d) and are not saved by the restrictions contemplated by cls.(2) to (5) of
the Article. It is also contended that there are no proper procedural safeguards
in the sections that follow. Before we deal with these contentions it is necessary
to glance briefly at sections 112-119 of Division B and sections 120-126-A of Division
C.
36. We have seen
the provision of S.107. That section says that action is to be taken 'in the manner
hereinafter provided' and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a Magistrate
in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent. This is very
salutary because the liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous,
that this liberty should only be curtailed according to its own procedure and not
recording to the whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behoves us, therefore, to
emphasise the safeguards built into the procedure because from them will arise the
consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public
order or in the interest of the general public.
37. The procedure
beings with S.112.. It requires that the Magistrate acting under S.107 shall make
an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the
amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character
and class of sureties (if any) required. Since the person to be proceeded against
has to shaw cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending
a breach of the peace of disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands. Although
the section speaks of the 'substance of the information' it does not mean the order
should not be full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must give propose
notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is the foundation
of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the essence of the most important
parts of the information."
9. In the decision
reported in
Moidu Vs. State of Kerala [1982 KHC 139]
also this Court has dealt with
the
Scope and ambit of Section 107 and what are all the things to be considered
by the magistrate before passing an order.
In para.4 of the said judgment, it has
been observed that, to take proceedings against the person under Section 107 of
Code of Criminal Procedure, there must be;
i) receipt of the
information by the magistrate
ii) such information
must be that, a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility
and
iii) on such information,
the magistrate must be able to form an opinion that there are sufficient grounds
for proceeding.
There is no controversy
with regard to the first and third elements. But, it is really the scope of the
second namely; what should be the nature of information concerning, the likelihood
of commission of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility that calls
for consideration. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as regards the nature
and source of information. As observed by
C. S. Reddy Vs. State of A.P., [1973 CriLJ
1713]
it may be that the past conduct and wrongful act is the some guideline. It
is not the likelihood of breach of peace at any point of time that is relevant.
The breach of peace must be iminent to justify action under Section 107. The information
about past conduct or wrongful act of the past must not be remote or isolated, must
be relatable to the present apprehension in the sense that, it must have some relevance
to the apprehension of likelihood of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility.
The contention that past conduct should not at all be the basis for taking proceedings
under Section 107 does not appears to be sound. There is no justification to read
such a limitation into the Section. In fact, it is the events of the past that would
furnish material to infer about the tendencies of a person which in turn will have
bearing on the likelihood of similar conduct on his part in the present or immediate
future. To quote the words of Venkatarama Iyer J. in
K.N. Joglekar Vs. Commissioner
of Police [AIR 1957 (SC) 28]
what a person is likely to do in future can only be
a matter of inference from various circumstances and his past record will be valuable
and often the only record on which it could be made. The same idea was expressed
by the Supreme Court in
Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 350]
as "the
past conduct or antecedent history of a person can be taken into account when making
an detention order and as a matter of fact, it is largely from prior events showing
the tendencies or inclinations of the man that an inference could be drawn whether
he is likely even in the future to act in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance
of public order." In the same decision, it has been observed that it is true
that Section 107 is not punitive in nature. But, it is intended to prevent apprehended
breaches of peace. But, that does not mean that past violent activities especially
those of immediate past cannot be taken into consideration to arrive at the conclusion
that there is likelihood of breach of peace in future. In para.13 of the judgment,
it has been observed that regard being had to the object of Section 107 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure and particularly the fact that it is not intended as a punitive
action, but preventing even where punitive action is taken, preventive action may
be called for, if the character of information is such that the magistrate would
be justified in acting on such information. As a rule of prudence, it may be said
that information about the events which are subject matter of pending prosecution,
may not by themselves be relied on by the magistrate as information sufficient to
warrant an order under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Ultimately, it
would be for the magistrate to consider whether on an overall consideration of facts
available to him by way of information, he could form the opinion that the person
against whom he was proposing to make action under Section 107 was likely to cause
iminent breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility. We make it clear that,
to the extent to the decision of this court in
Chirukandath Chandrasekharan Vs.
State of Kerala [1970 KLJ 61]
can be read as prohibiting a reliance on such information
in categorical terms. We do not agree. As we stated earlier, had it been stated
as a rule of prudence or caution, we may not have been reason to disagree with this.
In para.17 of the same judgment, while dealing with a case namely Crl.M.P.No.1762/1980
of this nature, this Court has after extracting the gist of the case registered
against the counter petitioners therein, observed that the general statement that
the counter petitioners are RSS workers and there exists enmity between RSS and
Marxists Party workers in Thalassery and suburban areas and there is tension prevailing
in various places does not by itself justify action under Section 107 of Code of
Criminal Procedure against the workers of each group. The only other materials stated
is that, there are some crime cases registered against the counter petitioners.
What those type of cases are and how they are related to the apprehension of breach
of peace are not evident from the preliminary order.
10. So, it is clear
from the above decision that
While initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Code
of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate must first pass an order under Section 111
of Code of Criminal Procedure stating the nature of information received, the relevant
factors which influenced the mind of the Magistrate to form an opinion that the
counter petitioners are likely to cause iminent breach of peace and public tranquility
in a particular place and the probable period during which it is likely to disturb
peace or tranquility in a particular locality and in order to prevent the same,
it is necessary to take preventive action against them and also the period of bond
for good behavior has to be executed etc., has to be explained in the order itself.
Mere extraction of mere information and citing the crimes against the counter petitioners
and directing them to execute the bond alone without co relating those informations
to the existence of iminent apprehension of peace or tranquility to be committed
or anticipated from the counter petitioners will not be sufficient in such circumstances.
11. In the decision
reported in
Henry Vijayakumar Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 495]
this court
has held that Annexure 3 order does not disclose the contents of the report based
on which Sub Divisional Magistrate expressed satisfaction to invoke the power under
Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, requiring the petitioner to appear to
show cause why he shall not execute a bond. It does not show what was the allegations
raised in the complaint against the petitioner, based on which, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate found that it is necessary to require the petitioner to execute the bond.
When it is under Annexure 3 foundation, the entire case is build up, the Sub Divisional
Magistrate is bound to disclose the entire facts so that the petitioner could resist
the proceedings when he appears.
12. It is also clear
from this that , the preliminary order issued against the counter petitioners must
contain the nature of information received which prompted the Sub Divisional Magistrate
to form an opinion that the counter petitioners are likely to involve in some iminent
act which is likely to affect the public peace and tranquility in a particular locality
and prevent the same, action has to be taken against them and only if those things
are mentioned in the order, then only they must be able to answer the same. Otherwise,
the proceedings is bad in law.
13. In the decision
reported in
Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P [2010 CriLJ 2267]
the High Court of Allahabad
had occasion to consider the same question and it has been observed in that judgment
that the impugned notice has been issued on a typed format in a cyclostyled manner.
In the said typed format, only the name, date and police station has been filled
in the gaps. It is further observed that in violation of Section 111 of Code of
Criminal Procedure, the magistrate did not set forth the substance of the information
received by him in the impugned notice which is mandatory in nature and non compliance
of the same, will vitiate the entire proceedings. In para.17 of that judgment, it
is observed that the preliminary order contemplated under Section 111 of Code of
Criminal Procedure is a judicial order and has to be prepared and drawn up cautiously
and carefully in compliance with the provisions of Section 111 of Code of Criminal
Procedure and the order must contain reasons of the magistrate's satisfaction. The
substance of the information is the matter upon which he has to show cause. If the
substance of the information is not given in the order under Section 111 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, the person against whom the order has been made will
remain in confusion. The extent of information which must be set forth depends in
each case upon the circumstance of that case. The basic object of preliminary order
being to give the person proceeded against an opportunity to meet the allegation
made against him as well as the nature of order proposed.
14. So, it is clear
from the above decisions that
It is not the report that has been received alone
is sufficient, but the satisfaction of the magistrate regarding the information
mentioned in the report which is sufficient to form an opinion for the magistrate
to initiate proceedings against the petitioners and the order under Section 111
of Code of Criminal Procedure must contain the nature of information received, the
particulars of information mentioned and the information which made the magistrate
to form an opinion regarding the existence of imminent danger of public peace and
tranquility which has to be prevented by initiating proceedings against the counter
petitioners invoking the power under Section 107 or 109 of Code of Criminal Procedure.
Those things must be clear from the order itself. Mere filling the form or mere
reproducing the words in the form 14 of the notice to be issued, without specifying
the nature of information, reason for forming the opinion etc., but, extracting
the crime numbers mentioned alone is not sufficient compliance of passing order
under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure and failure to pass such an order
will vitiate the entire proceedings. With the above principles in mind the cases
in hand have to be considered.
15. In all the above
cases, proceedings were initiated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the basis
of crimes registered by the Station House Officer stating a vague information that
the petitioners are likely to indulge in criminal activities causing public disorder
and affecting peace in the locality, issued the impugned orders. The number of cases
in which the counter petitioners involved in each cases as extracted in the impugned
orders are being tabulated as follows:
2.Cr.No.743/12 u/s 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324,
326, 506(i), 308 r/w 149 IPC. Both of Chakkarakkal PS
3 years
07/02/14
16. In all these cases,
the nature of order issued under Section 111 of the Code is the same. I am not extracting
all the preliminary orders passed in the above proceedings, but I am only extracting
the order passed in M.C.No.157/2013 as an example for deciding these cases which
reads as follows:
Preliminary Order
U/Sec 111 Cr.P.C
"WHEREAS it
appears to me on the basis of the credible information received from the S.I of
Police, Payandai Police Station that counter petitioner residing within the local
limits of my jurisdiction is likely to create breach of peace and disturb public
tranquility within the local limits of my jurisdiction and as I consider it is necessary
that he should be called upon to show cause why he should not be proceeded against
u/s 107 of Cr.P.C. They are hereby required to appear before me on 31.7.13 at 10.30
am at my court at Thalassery to show cause why hey/he should not be ordered to execute
a bond of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two solvent securities
each for the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year.
The counter petitioner
involved in following crimes at Payangadi Police Station.
2. Cr.No.792/12
u/s 143,145,147,148,341,353,308 r/w 149 IPC & 117 (e) of KP Act & 3(1) of
PDPP Act.
The petitioner
has reported that the Counter Petitioner is continuously involving in criminal activities
and thereby disturb public tranquility in the locality. The petitioner apprehends
further breach of peace from the Counter Petitioner and has requested to invoke
action u/s.107 of Cr.P.C against the Counter petitioner in order to maintain peace
and tranquility in the locality."
17. It is clear from
the above order that there is nothing mentioned in the order regarding the reason
for the authority to come to a conclusion that the activities of the counter petitioners
in that proceedings gave a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the authority
that they are likely to cause breach of peace and disrupt public tranquility at
a particular time at a particular place which requires immediate intervention of
the authorities to prevent such activities and for that purpose, they have to be
called upon to enter on a bond to keep good behaviour for a particular period. In
that case, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate has only extracted the wordings
in the printed form and extracted the case numbers in which the counter petitioner
was made an accused. He had not mentioned as to how far that is relevant for the
purpose of considering the question as to whether the counter petitioners have to
be called upon to enter on a bond to prevent public tranquility or breach of peace
in the locality. As discussed above, the very purpose of initiating proceedings
under Section 107 of the Code is to prevent public tranquility and breach of peace
expected to be committed by the counter petitioners at a particular place at a particular
time or period of time and it was intended to prevent that, that they are called
upon to enter on a bond for good behaviour for a particular period, so that they
can be prevented from participating in any act causing anticipated public tranquility
or breach of peace in a particular place for a particular time. On a reading of
the impugned order will go to show that there is nothing to infer from that order
even to infer, the reason for the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to come to such
a conclusion that the counter petitioner must be asked to enter into a bond for
the purpose mentioned under Sections 107 to 111 of the Code. The learned Magistrate
has only reproduced the form without application of mind simply extracting the case
numbers in which the counter petitioners were made accused. It is settled law that
merely because the counter petitioner was made an accused in a case alone is not
sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under Section 107 of the Code. The
purpose behind the initiation of proceedings is that there is an apprehension in
the mind of the authorities that a particular person or set of persons is/are likely
to involve in certain activities which is likely to create breach of peace and disrupt
public tranquility in a particular place and presence of such persons in that place
itself will be sufficient for that purpose and it is in the public interest that
has to be prevented and for that purpose the proceedings will have to be initiated
on the basis of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate from the
police or from other reliable sources and on that basis , he will have to satisfy
the existence of such iminent necessity to initiate proceedings against that particular
person and called upon to execute bond on good behaviour for a particular period
so as to prevent that person causing any breach of peace or public tranquility in
a particular place at that particular time. But a reading of the order of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate will go to show that there is no application of mind by the
learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in all these cases, but simply extracted the form
quoted some crime numbers some of them were committed some two or three years ago
and issued the order without passing any order as contemplated under Section 111
of the Code so as to enable the counter petitioner to meet the grounds on which
the proceedings have been initiated against him and as such, the procedure adopted
by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery in initiating proceedings against the
petitioners is illegal and without application of mind and the same are liable to
be quashed as it is not passed in terms of the provisions provided under Sections
107 to 111 of the Code. So, the petitioners are entitled to the relief claimed in
these petitions.
18. Crl.M.C.No.3207/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.157/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.157/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
19. Crl.M.C.No.3375/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.159/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.159/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
20. Crl.M.C.No.3409/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.158/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.158/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
21. Crl.M.C.No.3972/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.184/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.184/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
22. Crl.M.C.No.3973/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.183/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting four cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.183/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
23. Crl.M.C.No.4117/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.138/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.138/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
24. Crl.M.C.No.4131/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.202/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.202/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
25. Crl.M.C.No.4132/2013:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.188/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.188/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
26. Crl.M.C.No.4133/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.203/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.203/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
27. Crl.M.C.No.4134/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.204/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.204/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
28. Crl.M.C.No.4135/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.189/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting four cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.189/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
29. Crl.M.C.No.4136/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.187/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.187/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
30. Crl.M.C.No.4137/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.141/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting four cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.141/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
31. Crl.M.C.No.4138/2013:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.205/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.205/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
32. Crl.M.C.No.4139/2013:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.206/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.206/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
33. Crl.M.C.No.4320/2013:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.240/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.240/2013 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
34. Crl.M.C.No.1253/2014:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.18/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.18/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
35. Crl.M.C.No.1254/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.16/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting three cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.16/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
36. Crl.M.C.No.1255/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.15/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting a case in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.15/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
37. Crl.M.C.No.1256/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.17/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting a case in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.17/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
38. Crl.M.C.No.1257/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.14/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting a case in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.14/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
39. Crl.M.C.No.1383/2014:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.22/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.22/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
40. Crl.M.C.No.1384/2014:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.23/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.23/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
41. Crl.M.C.No.1394/2014:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.21/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting three cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.21/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
42. Crl.M.C.No.1473/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.2/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting two cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.2/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
43. Crl.M.C.No.1474/2014:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.3/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting four cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.3/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
44. Crl.M.C.No.1604/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.35/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting two cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.35/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
45. Crl.M.C.No.1666/2014:
Petitioners are the
counter petitioners in M.C.No.24/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery.
In this case except extracting three cases in which they were made accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.24/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
46. Crl.M.C.No.2778/2014:
Petitioner is the
counter petitioner in M.C.No.4/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery. In
this case except extracting two cases in which he was made an accused and without
disclosing the reasons which lead the authority to initiate proceedings without
application of mind and against the principles laid down in the above decisions
and so the same is liable to be quashed and the application is allowed and further
proceedings in M.C.No.4/2014 of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery is hereby
quashed.
All the petitions
are allowed for the reasons stated above and the proceedings initiated against the
petitioners in all these cases are hereby quashed. It is made clear that this will
not be a bar for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings against
the petitioners, if they are satisfied that situation still prevails so as to initiate
proceedings against them under Section 107 of the Code after complying with all
the procedures and guidelines provided in this judgment in accordance with law.
![Contents1 Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1.1 Question of law regarding the initiation of proceedings by the authorities under Section 107 to 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure and irregularities in the proceedings1.2 Chapter VIII of Code of Criminal Procedure deals with security for keeping the peace and for good behaviour. 1.3 Section 106 to 120 deals with the procedure and the circumstances under which the proceedings will have to be initiated etc., 1.4 "106. Security for keeping the peace on conviction:- 1.5 107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases:- 1.6 108. Security for good behaviour from persons disseminating seditious matters:-1.7 109. Security for good behaviour from suspected persons.- 1.8 110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders.- 1.8.1 (a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);1.8.2 (b) the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973, (46 of 1973)1.8.3 (c) the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952, (19 of 1952);1.8.4 (d) the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954);1.8.5 (e) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955)1.8.6 (f) the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955);1.8.7 (g) the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962);1.8.8 (h) the Foreigners Act, 1946 (31 of 1946) or2 111. Order to be made.- 2.1 112. Procedure in respect of person present in Court.- 2.2 113. Summons or warrant in case of person not so present.- 2.3 114. Copy of order to accompany summons or warrant.- 2.4 115. Power to dispense with personal attendance.- 2.5 116. Inquiry as to truth of information.-2.6 117. Order of give security.- 2.7 118. Discharge of person informed against.- 2.8 119. Commencement of period for which security is required.- 2.9 120. Contents of bond.- 3 BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE4 BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOUR5 SUMMONS ON INFORMATION OF A PROBABLE BREACH OF THE PEACE5.1 Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that, when a magistrate acting under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such Section, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substances of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the number, character and the class of sureties if any required. So, it is clear from this that before initiating proceedings, the magistrate has to pass an order satisfying himself regarding the existence of an apprehension of iminent breach of peace likely to be committed by the counter petitioners and to prevent such breach of peace or tranquility, they must be asked to execute bond for a particular period to avoid such breach of peace or tranquility in that locality.5.2 Madhu Limaye and another Vs. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others [AIR 1971 (SC) 2486] 5.3 Moidu Vs. State of Kerala [1982 KHC 139] 5.4 Scope and ambit of Section 107 and what are all the things to be considered by the magistrate before passing an order. 5.4.1 i) receipt of the information by the magistrate5.4.2 ii) such information must be that, a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility and5.4.3 iii) on such information, the magistrate must be able to form an opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding.5.5 C. S. Reddy Vs. State of A.P., [1973 CriLJ 1713]5.6 K.N. Joglekar Vs. Commissioner of Police [AIR 1957 (SC) 28]5.7 Ujagar Singh Vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1952 SC 350] 5.8 Chirukandath Chandrasekharan Vs. State of Kerala [1970 KLJ 61] 5.8.1 While initiating proceedings under Section 107 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate must first pass an order under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure stating the nature of information received, the relevant factors which influenced the mind of the Magistrate to form an opinion that the counter petitioners are likely to cause iminent breach of peace and public tranquility in a particular place and the probable period during which it is likely to disturb peace or tranquility in a particular locality and in order to prevent the same, it is necessary to take preventive action against them and also the period of bond for good behavior has to be executed etc., has to be explained in the order itself. Mere extraction of mere information and citing the crimes against the counter petitioners and directing them to execute the bond alone without co relating those informations to the existence of iminent apprehension of peace or tranquility to be committed or anticipated from the counter petitioners will not be sufficient in such circumstances.5.9 Henry Vijayakumar Vs. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 495]5.10 Rakesh Singh Vs. State of U.P [2010 CriLJ 2267]5.10.1 It is not the report that has been received alone is sufficient, but the satisfaction of the magistrate regarding the information mentioned in the report which is sufficient to form an opinion for the magistrate to initiate proceedings against the petitioners and the order under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure must contain the nature of information received, the particulars of information mentioned and the information which made the magistrate to form an opinion regarding the existence of imminent danger of public peace and tranquility which has to be prevented by initiating proceedings against the counter petitioners invoking the power under Section 107 or 109 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Those things must be clear from the order itself. Mere filling the form or mere reproducing the words in the form 14 of the notice to be issued, without specifying the nature of information, reason for forming the opinion etc., but, extracting the crime numbers mentioned alone is not sufficient compliance of passing order under Section 111 of Code of Criminal Procedure and failure to pass such an order will vitiate the entire proceedings. With the above principles in mind the cases in hand have to be considered.](/config/pagetemplates/keralaw-com/High%20Court%20of%20Kerala.jpg?attredirects=0){kind=link}