GNANASEKAR Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, POONAMALLEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Inspector of Police, Poonamallee laid a report in Crime No. 347/90 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kanchipuram seeking initiation of proceedings against first petitioner Gnanasekaran and 65 others alleging that they are Yadhava Caste Hindus and Vanniyars mostly residing in Anjaneyar Koil Street, Raja Agraharam Street, Judge Chellappa Naicker Street, New Street, Pillaiyar Koil Street and Vaitheeswaran Koil Street within Poonamalle town panchayat. Instances have come to notice in which they are acting in a manner which affected public peace and tranquility. They are likely to cause harm to the Harijans of Melma Nagar and disturb public peace in Poonamallee area. On 26.4.90, in M.C. No. 7/90 on his file the Revenue Divisional Officer, Kancheepuram passed a preliminary order under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be required to execute a bond for Rs. 500/ - each with two sureties for a like sum to keep peace for a period of one year. The counter petitioner in M.C. No. 7/90 now seeks to challenge the said order and pray for calling for the records in those preceedings and quash the same by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) IN his preliminary order learned Revenue Divisional Officer has mentioned these instances as the basis for his taking action under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners assails the preliminary order of the Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code mainly on the ground that the instances mentioned in the order are vague. The details such as date, time and place of occurrence are not given. Item No. 5 is the only instance which covers all the 66 petitioners. One instance is not sufficient to initiate proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code. While the first instance relates to the first petitioner, instance Nos. 3 and 4 are in respect of the second petitioner. In the second instance covered by Crime No. 324/90 it is generally stated that the counter petitioners were involved. It does not say that all the 66 petitioners have participated in that instance. As such except first and second petitioners, others are stated to be involved only in the last instance which is as vague as anything. In the said instance No. 5 neither the time. nor the date or exact place of occurrence is given. Even in the last instance which is registered as Crime No. 337/90, the names* of petitioners No. 1 to 5, 41, 61 and 65 alone find a place. So there had been no application of mind on the part of the learned Magistrate in preparing the order under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code.