Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JOHN BOSCO versus THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


John Bosco v. The Revenue Divisional Officer - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2978 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 1360 (10 April 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 10/04/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.2978 of 2007

and

M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007

1.John Bosco

2.Lurdhu mary

3.Joe

4.Nagarathinam

5.Kannadasan ... Petitioners

Vs

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Revenue Divisional Office,

Ramanathapuram.

2.The State represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Kenikkarai Police Station,

Ramanathapuram. ... Respondents

Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/9747/2006 dated 09.03.2007 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same. For Petitioner : Mr.E.Elil Selvi

For Respondents: Mr.L.Murugan

Government Advocate (Crl. Side) :ORDER



This petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/9747/2006 dated 09.03.2007 passed by the first respondent herein and quash the same.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this petition as stood exposited from the records could be portrayed thus:

The Sub Divisional Executive Magistrate and Sub Collector, Ramanathapuram, by his order dated 09.03.2007 signed on 12.03.2007, presumably passed under Section 111 Cr.P.C for invoking Section 107 Cr.P.C contains the names of two rival parties.

3. Challenging and impugning the method and manner in which the rival parties are being proceeded against by the learned Executive Magistrate, this petition has come to be filed.

4. Heard both sides. Perused the records.

5. In the facts and circumstances of this case, I would like to recollect the dictum of this Court in Muthusamy & Others v. The Inspector of Police, Mallasamudram Police Station, Mallasamudram, Namakkal District & Others reported in 1999 M.L.J.(Crl.)473(Mad.). An excerpt from it, would run thus: "My attention is invited to the ruling reported in Athianna Gounder v. Nachiappan, 1982 L.W.(Crl.)61. Wherein a learned Judge of this Court has held that the impugned order of the Magistrate passed under Section 111 of Criminal Procedure Code clubbing both A and B parties to execute bonds each for Rs.1,000 to keep peace for one year and to bind themselves not to commit any breach of peace or to do any action that may cause breach of peace during the said period of one year is illegal and set aside the same. To the same effect are the decisions reported in (1) Natesa Thevar v. Executive Magistrate, (1987)L.W.(Crl.)49; (2)Sekar v. R.Padmalosai, 1987 L.W.(Crl.)262 and (3) Balasundaram, T.R.A. v. T.R.Sellamuthu, 1987 L.W.(Crl.)332. Learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and 2 submitted that the period of one year has already expired and therefore, no order need be passed by this Court. I am unable to agree with the submission made on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. The question is whether the order passed by the Sub- Divisional Executive Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Tiruchengode is legal or not. I am clearly of the opinion that the correct position of law has been stated in the above decisions and I agree with the same. Hence, I find the impugned order is illegal and cannot be sustained".

6. In the light of the aforesaid dictum of this Court, if this is analysed, it is at once crystal clear that the said notice which is presumably a preliminary order under section 111 Cr.P.C dated 09.03.2007 signed on 12.03.2007 in Na.Ka.A4/9747/06 is liable to be quashed.

In the result, by allowing this petition, the proceedings in Na.Ka.No.A4/9747/2006 dated 09.03.2007 passed by the first respondent herein, is quashed and it is open for the learned Executive Magistrate to take action as against the parties separately strictly in accordance with law, if he chooses to so depending upon necessity. Consequently, connected M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2007 is also closed.

To

1.The Revenue Divisional Officer,

Revenue Divisional Office,

Ramanathapuram.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Kenikkarai Police Station,

Ramanathapuram.

3.The Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.