VELAYUTHAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal M.P. is filed for quash the preliminary order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kovilpatti in M.C.No.64 of 1985 dated 6.6.1985. The said order was passed on a report received from Inspector of Police, Puliankudi in Crime No.207/85 to the effect that the petitioners residing in Edaiyankulam and its surrounding villages are indulging in act of violance involving breach of peace and are terrorising the villagers and asking the people to do what they dictate. It is also stated that there are factions and feelings by which there is imminent danger to breach of peace. On receiving the said report the Sub Divisional Magistrate after a subjective satisfaction which is stated in the issued impugned order required the petitioners (41 in number) to appear before him at Kovilpatti and to show cause as to why they should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.1,000.00 each with sureties for the like sum, to keep the peace and good behaviour for a period of one year and also to show cause why they should not be asked to execute an interim bond till the disposal of the case. The order also consists of particular instances where the petitioners are concerned with commission of several offences under the Indian Penal Code and the same is as detailed below: Instance No.1:-On 23.4.1985 at above 10.00 p.m. at Edaiyankulam C.Ps.1 to 4 assaulted one Dayachandran s/o Urkavalan of Edaiyankulam and caused simple injuries due to some petty dispute took place at Circus theatre. Instance No.2: On 27.5.1985 at 7.00 a.m. at Edaiyankulam in the Athi Dravidas Colony the houses of Muthukutti, Arjunan and Patchaiammal were set fire by the members of unlawful assembly consisting of C.Ps.5 to 15 in which the entire houses, paddy bags, cotton and house hold articles were burned ashes. Instance No.3: On 1.6.1985 at about 10.30 hrs., the C.Ps.16 to 29 armed with sticks and stones raided the Athi Diravidas Colony at Edaiyankulam and threatened Muthukutty and his family members to quit the village at once failing which their lives could be at stake and thereby caused fear panic and insecurity to them. Instance No.4: On 2.6.1985 at about 3.00 p.m., while the witness Kovilpillai of Gomathimuthupuram was at Edaiyankulam to see their relatives the C.Ps.30 to 41 armed with sticks and other weapons marched towards the Athi Diravidas colony abused Kovilpillai with filthy language and chased him by saying that he should not enter into the village. Kovilpillai ran for his life and escaped from the hands of the C.Ps. The entire matter is in the preliminary stage of issue of notice and the petitioners are yet to appear before the Sub Divisional Magistrate to show cause as to why they should not be asked to execute a bond under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code. Even at his stage the above petition is filed seeking aid of this Court to call for the records and quash the proceedings pending before the learned Magistrate.

(2.) The contentions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners in support of his argument that the proceedings are liable to be quashed are as follows:

(3.) The first contention of the learned Advocate for the petitioners is, the preliminary order under section 111, Criminal Procedure Code, can be issued only after a subjective satisfaction on the part of the officer concerned and the present order is not such an order. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel cited the following decisions: Perumal v. State, (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 173 and Ayyavoo Chettiar v. Inspector of Police, Ennore Circle, (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 112. In the case reported in Perumal v. State, (1984) L.W. (Crl.) 173, a single Judge of this Court has held as follows: