K.SIVA Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Criminal Original Petitions have been filed to call for the records pertaining to the impugned bonds signed by the petitioners, before the 1st respondent herein, in M.C.No.05(Cr.P.C.) 2022 (U/s.106 & 107 Cr.P.C), dtd. 10/9/2022, 19/9/2022 and 16/9/2022, respectively and quash the same.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that summons dtd. 16/8/2022 were issued by the 1st respondent in M.C.A3/14 (107 Cr.P.C.)/2021 with a direction to the petitioners to appear before the SubDivisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer, Udayarpalayam on 24/8/2022 at 11.00 a.m. to answer the charges under Sec. 107 Cr.P.C. Challenging these summons, petitioners filed Crl.O.P.No.21816 of 2022 for quashing the summons. The abovesaid criminal original petition was listed for hearing on 12/9/2022. In view of the filing of Crl.O.P.No.21816 of 2022, petitioners did not appear before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer on 24/8/2022. Thereafter, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer directed the arrest of the petitioners and produce before him on 10/9/2022. Subsequently, petitioners were arrested and produced before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate-cum2/10 Revenue Divisional Officer and made to execute a bond under Ss. 106 & 107 Cr.P.C. Challenging the bonds secured from the petitioners, these petitions have been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the bond under Ss. 106 & 107 Cr.P.C. can be secured only by a Court of Sessions or Court of Magistrate of the first class and not by an Executive Magistrate. Before requiring one to execute a bond under Ss. 106 & 107 Cr.P.C., an order has to be made under Sec. 111 Cr.P.C. The Magistrate is required to conduct an inquiry to enquire into the truth of the information, upon which, action has been taken and to take further evidence as that appears necessary. Such inquiry shall have to be conducted in the manner prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons case. However, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such inquiry as contemplated under Sec. 116 Cr.P.C. was conducted. Even if an order is passed demanding execution of bond, that is appealable under Sec. 373 Cr.P.C. No opportunity was given to the petitioners for preferring an appeal. Therefore this petition.