SELVAM Vs. SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE (NORTH), PUDUCHERRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the impugned order, dtd. 7/12/2023 in M.C.No.173 of 2023 of I.R.No.67 of 2023 under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C., passed by the 1st respondent, this Criminal Revision Case has been filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The gist of the case is that the 3 rd respondent submitted a report, dtd. 24/7/2023 in I.R.No.67 of 2023 under Sec. 144 of Cr.P.C., stating that the petitioner herein has formed a rowdy group, indulged in criminal activities of murder by using deadly weapons and created panic in the minds of the local inhabitants. The people of the locality are now afraid of the petitioner even to whisper his name. Due to which, nobody came forward to lodge any complaint fearing for life. A case against the petitioner in Crime No.44 of 2023 for offence under Ss. 302, 201 r/w 34 of IPC registered by the 3rd respondent and the investigation is in progress. The petitioner has no job and no proper work, but leading a lavish life using his notoriety and gang of rowdies and creating terror and thereby, collecting money from the business man and affluent people. If the petitioner is allowed to reside in Ariyankuppam village, he would continue to indulge in serious offence like murder and he would become perennial source of threat to the community and disturb public peace and order. Hence, the 3rd respondent prayed to invoke the provision under Sec. 144 Cr.P.C., against the petitioner for a period of two months. A notice, dtd. 16/11/2023 was served on the petitioner to appear before the 1st respondent on 30/11/2023 and subsequently for a hearing on 7/12/2023. On 7/12/2023, the petitioner through his Advocate and 3rd respondent present. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed by the 1st respondent which is under challenge.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was granted bail by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in Crime No.44 of 2023 and thereafter, he is complying with the order of the Court without any deviation in accordance with law. The petitioner is employed as Driver living in his native with his wife and two female children with reputation. The 3rd respondent Police without following the procedure of law initiated a case against the petitioner on source information, is false. The 1st respondent without any material had recorded as though the petitioner is the reason for public interest and apprehension of danger for public peace and indulging in illegal activities. Apart from the above case, the petitioner has got no other case against him. The 1st respondent could not cite single incident to decide the petitioner being a potential danger to the human life or public tranquility. He further submitted that the 1st respondent without applying its mind and without any material had passed the impugned order. The allegation narrated against the petitioner in the impugned order is baseless. He further submitted that as per Article 19 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has got right to move throughout India which cannot be restricted by the 1st respondent without any reasonable cause. Hence, prays for setting aside the impugned order.