Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GOVINDARAJ versus THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Govindaraj v. The Sub Divisional Magistrate - Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1021 of 2007 [2007] RD-TN 514 (7 February 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 07/02/2007

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA

Crl.O.P.(MD).No.1021 of 2007

and

M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2007

1.Govindaraj

2.Marimuthu

3.Subramaniar

4.Samiayya

5.Ramanathan

6.Ramakrishnan

7.Ramakrishnan

8.Subramanian

9.Gopinath ... Petitioners Vs.

1.The Sub Divisional Magistrate,

Revenue Divisional Officer,

Aranthangi,

Pudukkottai District.

2.The Inspector of Police,

Mimisal Police Station,

Pudukkkottai District.

3.Thanaraj

4.Dakshinamoorthy

5.viswanathan

6.Murugan

7.Anandh

8.Thoondiaiah

9.Nizar

10.Palani

11.Gunasekaran

12.Kamal Mohamed ... Respondents Prayer

Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aranthangi, dated 05.01.2007 and quash the same. For Petitioner ... Mr.K.K.Ramakrishnan

For Respondents ... Mr.M.Ravishankar

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side)

for R1 and R2.

:ORDER



This petition has been filed to set aside the order passed in M.C.No.32 of 2006 on the file of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aranthangi, dated 05.01.2007 and quash the same.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) took notice for R1 and R2.

3. The nitty gritty of the grievance of the petitioners is that the Sub Divisional Magistrate and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, issued show cause notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C, by citing the Inspector of Police as petitioner and 'A' party comprised of ten persons and 'B' party comprised of another ten persons as counter petitioners, which is against the mandate of this Court in various similar cases.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) took notice of it and agreed with the legal position that there cannot be one proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C and arraying one set of persons as 'A' party and another set of persons as 'B' party. In this connection, the decision of this Court in Murugesan and 96 others K.P. v. State by Inspector of Police, Keeranur reported in 1983 L.W.(Cri)221. An excerpt from it, would run thus: "6. Coming now to the case-law on the subject, the uniform ratio laid down in a series of decisions is that the two opposing parties in a dispute cannot be proceeded against under S.107, Crl.P.C., in one proceeding. Vide: Kamal Narain Chowdry v. Emperor [11. C.W.N.472.], Ganapathy Bhatta v. Emperor [1908 I.L.R 31 Mad. 276], Har Dutta Panda v. Emperor [1916 Crl.L.J.165], Mohamed Ismail v. the Crown [A.I.R 1924 All. 195], Kisore Ahir v. King-Emperor [A.I.R.1926 Patna 32.], Rathinam Pillai v. Emperor [1937 M.W.N Crl.217], Khetramohandas v. Emperor [A.I.R 1943 Patna 376], King-Emperor v. Laxminarayanan [I.L.R 1950 Nag. 859], Krupasindh v. Rez [A.I.R 1951 Orissa 277], Athianna Gounder v. Nachiappa [1982 L.W.Crl. 61], Kumarasamy Gounder and others v. State [Crl.M.P.No.3669 of 1980, dated 29th September, 1980] and Santhana Marian Nadar and other v. The State and others [Crl.M.P.No.2359 of 1983, dated 2nd April, 1982.]

7. However, in the last two cases, (12 and 13), Ratnavel Pandian, J., after holding that the order of directing a joint enquiry against the members of two hostile parties will vitiate the enquiry and quashing the order, gave liberty to the Executive Magistrate to pass separate orders afresh against the members of the two parties and proceed with the enquiry if the situation warranted it. Thus, the settled position of law is that a Sub Divisional or Executive Magistrate will have no power to club together the members of two hostile groups and pass a joint order under S.111, Crl.P.C., calling upon both of them to face a joint enquiry before him. Because of the non-observance of this elementary mandate by the Executive Magistrates, a large number of orders passed by the Magistrates get quashed by the High Court, with the result that security proceedings taken under S.107, Crl.P.C., become an abortive exercise for the authorities in charge of maintenance of law and order. It will therefore be advisable if the Government issues a special circular to the Executive Magistrates to draw their attention to the correct procedure that has to be followed when they pass orders under S.107 Crl.P.C., and hold enquiries under S.116."

5. From the perusal of the above decision, it is clear that the impugned notice dated 05.01.2007 is liable to be quashed and accordingly, by allowing this Criminal Original Petition, the order passed in M.C.No.32 of 2006 is quashed, giving liberty to the Sub Divisional Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Aranthangi, to proceed with the matter as per law if he so desires. Consequently, connected M.P(MD)No.1 of 2006 is also closed. To

1. The Sub Divisional Magistrate &

Revenue Divisional Officer,

Aranthangi,

Pudukkottai District.

2. The Inspector of Police,

Mimisal Police Station,

Pudukkkottai District.

3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of the 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.