As the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in these cases submitted that these cases are covered by the judgment of this Court in the case between Santhosh v. State of Kerala in Crl.M.C.No.3207/2013 and connected cases, reported in 2014 (3) KLT 837=2014 (3) ILR (Ker.) 993, these cases are taken up for consideration together.
2. Before going into facts of these cases, it may be useful to refer to the factual details, contentions considered and issues decided by this Court in the aforementioned case in Santhosh v. State of Kerala reported in 2014 (3) KLT 837. In those cases, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery had initiated proceedings against the petitioner therein under Sec.
107 of the Cr.P.C. and passed order under Sec. 111 of the Cr.P.C. directing them to execute bond under Sec. 109 Cr.P.C. It was mentioned in the impugned preliminary order therein that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had received a report from the Station House Officer concerned, apprehending involvement of those petitioners in certain criminal activities and causing disturbance to peace and public tranquility and had requested the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceedings under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. In all those cases, merely by stating the case numbers and sections of the offences alleged against those petitioners, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, without even mentioning the substance of the information and the reasons for satisfaction, had issued almost stereo type order directing the petitioners therein to execute bond to keep peace and order in the locality for a further period or to show cause as to why they should not be directed to execute bond as above said which were challenged by the petitioners in those matters.
3. Sec. 107 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows:
“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 tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity 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, 1.1. Ins. by Act 45 of 1978, Section 11. [with or without sureties,] for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks Fit.
(2) Proceeding 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.”
Sec. 109 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows:
“109:Security for good behaviour from suspected persons-When 1.1. Subs. by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1980 published in the Gazette of India. Extraordinary, Pt. II, Section I, dated the 27th December, 1980. [an Executive Magistrate] receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person taking precaution 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.”
Sec. 111 of the Cr.P.C reads as follows:
“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 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 class of sureties (if any) required.”
This Court referred to the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & others reported in AIR 1971 SC 2486, wherein paragraph 37 thereof has held that it requires that the Magistrate acting under Sec. 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 and that since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause, it is but natural that he must know the grounds for apprehending a breach of peace of disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands. That although the section speaks of the 'substance of the information' it does not mean the order should not be full. I may not repeat the information bodily but it must give propose notice of what has moved the Magistrate to take the action and this order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the essence of the most important parts of the information. In the case Moidu v. State of Kerala reported in 1982 KLT 578 (F.B), this Court dealt with the scope and ambit of Sec. 107 and in paragraph 4 thereof it has been held that to take proceedings against the person under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C, 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 of disturb public tranquility and (iii) on such information, the Magistrate must be able to form an opinion that there are sufficient grounds for proceeding. After considering the matter in the light of the above said legal position, especially based on the above said Full Bench decision, this Court in Santhosh's case (supra) held that there is no controversy regarding the first and third elements and it is really the scope of the second element, 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. To hold that breach of peace it must be imminent to justify action under Sec. 107 and the information about past conduct or wrongful act of the past must not be remote or isolated, must be related 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 that the contention that past conduct should not at all be the basis for taking proceedings under Sec.107 does not appears to be sound and there is no justification to read such a limitation into the Section. That 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 Sec. 107 Cr.P.C that ultimately it is for the Magistrate to consider whether on an overall consideration of the 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 Sec. 107 was likely to cause imminent breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility. In paragraph 12 of Santhosh's case (supra) this Court held that the preliminary order issued against the counter petitioners must contain the specific nature of information received which prompted the Sub Divisional Magistrate to form an opinion that the counter petitioners are likely to involve in some imminent 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 that only if those things are mentioned in the preliminary order, then only they must be able to answer the same and otherwise, the proceedings is bad in law. Where the Magistrate did not set forth the substance of the information received by him in the impugned notice which is mandatory in nature and noncompliance of the same, will vitiate the entire proceedings. The order under Sec. 111 of the Cr.P.C is a judicial order and has to be prepared and drawn up cautiously and carefully in compliance with the provisions of Sec. 111 Cr.P.C and the order must contain reasons of the Magistrate's satisfaction. If the substance of the information is not given in the order under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C, the person against whom the order has been made will remain in confusion and the extent of information which must be set forth in the preliminary order depends in each case upon the facts and circumstances of that case. The basic object of the preliminary order is to give, the person proceeded against, an opportunity to meet the allegation against him as well as the nature of the order proposed. If this aspect is to be further appreciated in the light of the aspects considered by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in paragraph 35 to 37 of Madhu Limaye and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & others reported in AIR 1971 SC 2486 wherein the Apex Court had also considered whether those sections concerned, more particularly, Sec. 107 are destructive of the freedom of the individual guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) vis- a-vis, the restrictions contemplated under clauses (2) to (5) of Article 19 and also the contention that there are no proper procedural safeguards in that Section, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held in paragraph 36 thereof that it is not open to the Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to any substantial extent and this is salutary because liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly solicitous that this liberty should only be curtailed according to prescribed procedure and not according to the whims of the Magistrate concerned and that it behoves the Supreme Court 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. It is in the light of these crucial aspects regarding the impact of those sections on the fundamental freedom guaranteed by Article 19(1) vis-a-vis, the reasonable restrictions in clause (2) to (5) of that Article; that the Constitution Bench further categorically held in paragraph 37 of Madhu Limaye's case (supra) that the Magistrate acting under that provision shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, etc. and that since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause, it is but natural that he must necessarily know the grounds for apprehending a breach of peace or disturbance of the public tranquility at his hands and that the substance of the information should be clearly disclosed in the preliminary order and this order is the foundation of the jurisdiction and that the word 'substance' means the essence of most important aspects of the information etc.
4. Based on those aspects, this Court in Santhosh's case (supra) in paragraph 14 thereof has held that it is not just the report of the Station House Officer 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 Sec.
111 of the Cr.P.C 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 is to be prevented by initiating proceedings against the counter petitioners invoking the power under Secs. 107 or 109 of the Cr.P.C and those things must be clear from the impugned preliminary order itself. It is further categorically held that 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 Sec. 111 Cr.P.C and failure to pass such an order will vitiate the entire proceedings. Form No.14 referred to above reads as follows:
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) The impugned preliminary order issued under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C considered by this Court in Santhosh's case (supra) 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.
1. Cr.No.789/12 u/s 143,147,148,448,427,436 r/w 149 IPC
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 Crl.M.C.No.3207/13& Con.Cases 34 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.”
5. This Court found that there is nothing mentioned in the impugned order regarding the reason for the authority to come to a conclusion that the activities of the counter petitioners gave a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the authority that they are likely to cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquility at a particular time at a particular place which requires immediate intervention of the authorities to prevent such activities and in that case the Sub Divisional Magistrate has only extracted the wordings in the printed form and extracted merely the case numbers in which counter petitioners were made as accused and it is not even mentioned as to how far that is relevant for the purpose of considering the question as to whether counter petitioners have to be called upon to enter on a bond to prevent public tranquility or breach of peace in the locality. It was found that the Magistrate only reproduced the form without application of mind simply extracting the case numbers in which the counter petitioners were made accused and it is well settled that merely because the counter petitioners were made accused alone is not sufficient to initiate proceedings against him under Sec. 107 of the Code and it was held that a reading of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate will go to show that there was no application of mind by him in those cases. He simply extracted the form, quoted some crime numbers and issued the order without passing any order as contemplated under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C so as to enable the counter petitioners to meet the grounds on which proceedings have been initiated against them and accordingly it was held that procedure adopted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is illegal and without application of mind and are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this Court in Santhosh's case (supra) allowed all the petitions and the impugned proceedings initiated in all those cases were quashed and it was further 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 under Sec.
107 Cr.P.C after complying with all the procedures and guidelines provided in the judgment in accordance with law.
6. Now the important factual aspects in each of these cases could be considered.
Crl.M.C.No.7259/2014.
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in M.C.No.211/2014 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery which is registered under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. Those proceedings are initiated on the basis of the report of the Station House Officer of Peringom Police Station to the effect that the petitioner is continuously involving in criminal activities and thereby disturbing public tranquility in the locality. Annexure-A1 is the impugned preliminary order issued on 20.11.2014 under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. It is stated in the impugned order that the petitioner is an accused in five crimes, three of which are of the year 2012 and the remaining two are of the year 2013. It is contended that the substance of the information showing that there may be imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility is not stated in the said impugned order. All what is stated that credible information has been received from the Sub Inspector of Police concerned that the petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace and disturb public tranquility. Three of the crimes mentioned are of the year 2012 and the remaining two crimes are of the year 2013 and the impugned order is issued on 20.11.2014 and it does not show any substantial details as to the activities indulged in by the petitioner which gives rise to the apprehension of imminent breach of peace and public tranquility as on November, 2014. It is contended that the impugned order is identically worded as that of the impugned order considered by this Court in Santhosh's case quoted above, except the numbers of the crimes and the names and addresses of the petitioner etc. It is prayed that the impugned order may be quashed as the matter in issue is fully covered against the respondents as per the legal position settled by this Court in Santhosh's case (supra).
Crl.M.C.No.7092/2014
7. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned Annexure-A1 order which is a preliminary order issued under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. on 4.12.2014. It is pointed out that the substance of the information regarding the apprehension which gives rise to the imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility as contemplated in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Moidu v. State of Kerala (supra) and by the decision of this Court in Santhosh's case (supra) etc. has not been given in the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. That the petitioner is a political activist of opposite party and that he was only involved in legitimate political activities and that the case against him is falsely implicated etc. The petitioner also relies on the decision of this Court in Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another reported in 2009 (4) KHC 929 wherein it has been held as follows:
'S.107 of code of criminal procedure enables an executive magistrate on receiving information that a person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace of disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceedings, to require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping peace for such period not exceeding one year as the magistrate thinks fit. S.111mandates that when a magistrate acting under s.107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, he shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance 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 class of sureties, if any required, the necessity to set forth “the substance of the information” in the order under s.111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him.'
That it has been held by this Court in Muktar v. S.I. Of Police reported in 2002 (1) KLT SN 15 that an order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C should disclose what are the matters in respect of which they have to show cause. It was also held that mere fact that the petitioner is an accused in criminal case alone is not sufficient for initiating proceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. That mere registration of criminal case cannot ba ground for issuing an order under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C as held by this Court in Ahammad Kabeer v. State of Kerala and another reported in 2014 (2) KLJ 209, Moidu v. State of Kerala reported in 1982 KLT 578 (FB), Peethambaran v. State reported in 1980 KLT 876. That it has been held in Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P reported in 2010 KHC 7380 that the preliminary order contemplated under S.111 Cr.P.C is a judicial order and has to be prepared and drawn up cautiously and carefully in compliance with the provisions of S.111 Cr.P.C and the order must contain reasons of the Magistrate's satisfaction and the substance of the information is the matter upon which the affected party has to show cause and if the substance of information is not given in the order under S. 111 Cr.P.C, the person against whom the order has been made will be totally helpless in effectively replying to those aspects. That in the instant case, the impugned order in the printed proforma without recording the reasons, without judicial application of mind and using of printed/cyclo styled proforma with some insertions here or there for passing such an order is not proper, rather on the face of it is nothing but of an abuse. That notice under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C contending vague apprehensions and allegations in the printed/cyclo styled proforma indicate pre-conceived notions. That the impugned order is void and proceedings against the petitioner are nullity and without jurisdiction as substance of information is incomplete and unambiguous. That the notice issued without disclosing the substance of information would vitiate the entire proceedings. That the impugned notice issued under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C drawn on the basis of such vague notice is nothing but an abuse of process of court and failure to comply with mandatory requirements under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C vitiate the preliminary order and consequently the proceedings etc. It is in the light of these factual aspects and the legal contentions that the petitioners has sought the prayer to quash the impugned order issued under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C.
Crl.M.C.No.7097/2013
8. Annexure-A1 is the impugned preliminary order issued under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C in this case. The impugned order is also identically worded as the impugned order in the other cases, except the name and details of the petitioner and the number of the crime in which he is alleged to have been involved. The substance of the information which led to the apprehension about the imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility is not stated except the bare recital that it appears to the Magistrate on the basis of credible information received from the Sub Inspector of Police that the counter petitioner is likely to create breach of peace and public tranquility etc. Identical contentions and prayer as in Crl.M.C.No.7092/2014 are raised in this case also.
Crl.M.C.Nos. 7098, 7099 & 7100 of 2014 & 3031, 3032 & 3033 of 2014.
These cases are also almost similar to the other Crl.M.Cs. The impugned order is produced as Annexure-A1 in all these cases. Format and wordings of the impugned order are identical to that of the other cases, except the names and details of the petitioners and number of the crimes in which the petitioners are alleged to have been involved. The substance of the information which gives rise to the information regarding the imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility have not been stated in Annexure-A1 except bare recital that credible information has been received from the Sub Inspector of Police concerned. The details of the activities allegedly involved in by the petitioners are not stated except a bare recital that the Sub Inspector of Police has reported that the counter petitioners in these proceedings are continuously involved in imminent breach of peace and public tranquility in the locality.
9. Heard Sri.I.V.Pramod learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in Crl.M.C.No.7259/2014 and Sri.K.P.Harish, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other Crl.M.Cs. and learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents State of kerala.
10. The impugned Annexure-A1 order in Crl.M.C 7259/2014 reads as follows:
“WHEREAS it appears to me on the basis of the credible information received from the S.I of Police, Peringom 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 10.12.14 at 10:30 am. at mu court at Thalassery to show cause why they/he should not be ordered to execute a bond of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty 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 the following crimes at Peringom Police Station.
1. Cr.No.633/12 u/s 143, 147, 148, 283, 447, 332, 353, 427 r/w 149 IPC & Sec 3(1) of PDPP Act.
2. Cr.No.640/12 u/s 143, 147, 448, 427, 379 r/w 149 IPC.
3. Cr.No.645/12 u/s 147, 148, 448, 427 r/w 149 IPC.
4. Cr.No.559/13 u/s 153 r/w 34 IPC.
5. Cr.No.565/13 u/s 341, 323, 324, 308 r/w 34 IPC.
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.”
All the other impugned orders in other Crl.M.Cs are also identically ordered as stated above. On a comparison of the impugned orders herein and in Santhosh's case, quoted herein above, are all identical, similarly worded except the name and such other details of the petitioners and the number of the crimes in which they are allegedly involved. The substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate which gives rise to the apprehension regarding the imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility are not stated in any of these orders as held in paragraph 35 of the Constitution Bench decision in the case Madhu Limaye and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr & others reported in AIR 1971 SC 2486, the aspect whether the provisions are destructive of freedom of the individual guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(a)(b)(c) and (d) which have been under clause (2) to (5) of that Article is a very important aspect. In order to ensure full adherence to the fundamental right conferred in Part-III of the Constitution of India, there has to be full compliance of the procedure given in the statute and there cannot be any departure from the procedure to any substantial extent and this is very salutary because liberty of the person is involved and as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court that the law is rightly solicitous, that this liberty should only be curtailed according to prescribed procedure and not recording to the whims and fancies of the authorities concerned and therefore, the Supreme Court has emphasised the adherence to the safeguards built into the procedure because from them will raise the consideration of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of public order or in the interest of the general public. Therefore the substance of the information has to be clearly spelt out in the impugned preliminary order. Since the person to be proceeded against has to show cause to said preliminary order it is mandatory that he must know the ground for apprehending the alleged breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility which gives rise to the preliminary order and the word 'substance' means the essence of the most important aspect of the information and therefore the most important aspect and the part of the information which gives rise to the apprehension regarding imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility should be clearly stated in the impugned order as otherwise the person against whom such proceedings are issued will be totally helpless to defend himself in such proceedings. Only if the essence of the most important aspect of such information is stated in the impugned preliminary order that the affected person can rebut the same and show that the existence of the apprehension of the imminent breach of peace is without proper foundation etc. Therefore, if the substance of the information is not disclosed in the impugned preliminary order then the same would be illegal and ultravires and liable to be legally interdicted. In all these cases, the substance of information regarding the existence of apprehension regarding imminent breach of peace and disturbance of public tranquility is not disclosed in any manner. Mere recital in the impugned order that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has got information from the Sub Inspector of Police concerned that the counter petitioners is likely create breach of peace and disturb public tranquility etc. will not be sufficient to fulfill the rigorous requirement of the relevant aspect in the exercise of jurisdiction under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. So also, merely because it is stated in the impugned order that the Sub Inspector of Police has reported that the counter petitioners are continuously involved in criminal activities and thereby disturb the public tranquility will not suffice and the substance of essence of such information allegedly indulged in by the petitioners and should also be clearly disclosed in the impugned preliminary order. Therefore, the matter in issue is fully covered against the respondents as per the legal position well settled by this Court in Santhosh's case (supra) and other cases mentioned herein above.
Therefore, all the Crl.M.Cs are thus allowed and the impugned order in all these cases are quashed. It is made clear that this order will not be a bar for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioners
proceedings against them under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C after complying with all the procedures and guidelines provided in this order and in the judgments cited hereinabove and strictly in accordance with law.
bkn/-
ALEXANDER THOMAS,
Judge.