PONNAMMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to quash the proceedings in M.C.No. 1 of 2000 passed by the learned Executive Magistrate, which were initiated under Section 145 of the Cr.P.C. against the petitioners. The petitioners challenge the preliminary order dated 6.12.2000 passed by him on the ground that the order does not satisfy the requirements of Section 145 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The petitioners are "A" party and according to the Executive Magistrate, the Revenue Inspector, Kinathukadavu, has laid an information before him that a dispute is likely to arise between "A" party, the petitioners herein, and "B" party regarding a dispute concerning the boundaries for patta lands in Survey Nos.21/1 and 21/2 of Sokkanur Village, Pollachi Taluk. The said Revenue Inspector has further averred that the members of "A" party have put up barbed fire fencing and preventing Veluchamy belonging to "B" party from reaching his patta lands and that both parties are confronting with each other and therefore, there is likelihood of breach of peace. The Magistrate, thereafter, passed the preliminary order stating that he was satisfied with the report of the Revenue Inspector, Kinathukadavu that a dispute is likely to occur in Sokkanur village resulting in breach of peace in and around the said village and therefore, the members of "A" and "B" parties are to be summoned and accordingly summoned them, by the said order, to appear before him at 11.00 a.m. on 11.12.2000.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that though the order states that the Magistrate was satisfied about the likelihood of breach of peace, he has not mentioned the grounds of his satisfaction and therefore, the preliminary order suffers from illegality. In support of his plea, he relies upon a judgment of this Court rendered by a learned Single Judge in KARTHIKEYAN -vs- STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (L&O) AND OTHERS (1990 M.L.J. (CRL) 149). The learned Single Judge, in the above case, held that three fundamental requisites to maintain an order under Section 145 Criminal Procedure Code are needed and they are, (1) there must be a report of a police officer or other information that a dispute was likely to cause breach of peace concerning the property mentioned in the section; (2) the Magistrate must be satisfied with such police report or other information that the dispute was likely to cause breach of peace; and (3) on the satisfaction of the Magistrate, he must make an order in writing stating the grounds for satisfaction in the order, he intends making under Section 145(1), Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Single Judge further held that the twin requirements of satisfaction of the Magistrate and the grounds of his satisfaction are different and if a Magistrate has stated that he is satisfied from a police report or other information that a breach of peace was likely to be caused, he was recording the fact of his satisfaction but not the grounds of his satisfaction. According to the learned Single Judge, the order, therefore, must indicate the grounds for finding that there was likelihood of breach of peace and non-compliance with the provisions of Section 145(1) Criminal Procedure Code, certainly vitiates the preliminary order as it is one which is passed without jurisdiction.