SUJITH P. Vs. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners are challenging the orders passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery in MC Nos. 126/2015, 19/2016, 20/2016 and 21/2016. Through the said orders, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thalassery, has issued preliminary orders under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C., thereby requiring the petitioners to appear before him and to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bond for Rs. 50,000/ - with two solvent sureties each for the like amount, for keeping peace for a period of one year.

(2.) According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Magistrate has violated all the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Madhu Limaye and another v/s. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others [ : AIR 1971 SC 2486] as well as the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Moidu v/s. State of Kerala [ : 1982 KLT 578 (FB)]. The learned counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Santhosh v/s. State of Kerala [ : 2014 (3) KLT 837] also.

(3.) Based on the decisions noted supra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the provision under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. is not punitive, whereas it is preventive and, therefore, when a person is called upon to answer or to show cause, he should be made aware of the substance of the information allegedly received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, which enabled him to pass a preliminary order under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. It is also argued that the threat allegedly posed by the petitioners should be imminent and the same should not be based on something happened years back.