NMALAIYANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two petitions though filed by different sets of petitioners, arise out of the proceedings in M.C. 18 of 1981 on the file of the Executive First Class Magistrate -cum -Revenue Divisional Officer, Usilampatti. The former petition has been filed by the members of the A party and the latter petition has been filed by Nos. 7 and 8 of the B party in the said proceedings. Each set of petitioners seeks quashing of the proceedings against them before the Executive First Class Magistrate.

(2.) ON the basis of information laid before him by the Inspector of Police, T. Kallupatty, the Executive First class Magistrate passed an order under S. 112 Cri.P.C. (sic, for Section 111 Cri.P.C.) and called upon the members of the A party and B party to appear before him on 27 -7 -1981 at 10 a.m. and show cause why each one of them should not be directed to execute a bond for a sum of Rs. 1000/ - with two sureties each in a like sum to keep the peace for a period of one year and also to execute an interim bond for a like sum with like sureties for the period till the case is finally disposed of. On receipt of the order, the members of the two parties have come forward with these two petitions under section 482 Cri.P.C. to seek the quashing of proceedings against them.

(3.) THE petitioners in the first petition assail the validity of the preliminary order passed by the Executive First Class Magistrate on the following grounds -(1) Instances 1 and 3 refer to one named person of A party and two unnamed persons, but in spite of it, 26 members of the A party have been called upon to appear and show cause why they should not execute bonds for keeping the peace. There was no material fact for the learned Magistrate to call upon all the members of the party A instead of the two individuals alone named in instances 1 and 3 to show cause why they should not be bound aver. (2) The learned Magistrate has merely repeated the instances cited by the Inspector of Police and has passed the order without any discussion or consideration of the truth or otherwise of the materials placed before him. Therefore, the order suffers from non -application of mind by the Magistrate. (3) In the preliminary order, the members of the two opposing factions have been clubbed together and called upon to face a joint enquiry and this is opposed to sub -section 5 of Section 116 Crl.P.C. which permits a joint enquiry of only members or association of the same group. (4) The preliminary order ought to have been drawn up like+ a charge sheet containing all details with a list of witnesses to be examined and the nature of the evidence to be produced. But the impugned order does not disclose these materials and hence it is not in conformity with law. (5) The proceedings have been initiated in respect of cases pending investigation and therefore it follows that the Magistrate has acted prematurely on the information laid before him.