Allowed

Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC5 Feb 2016Crl.MC/296/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Crl.M.C. against a Sub Divisional Magistrate's order initiating proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. The Court held the order invalid for lack of recorded reasons justifying fear of breach of peace and remitted the matter for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-A order is quashed and matter remitted to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for enabling him to pass a speaking order.

Satheesh Kumar Vs State of Kerala — Bail and Remand | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016/16TH MAGHA, 1937

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 296 of 2016 ()

¶6

-------------------------MC.NO. 249/2015 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CRIME NO. 1812/2015 OF VIZHINJAM POLICE STATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

SATHEESH KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. RATHNASWAMY, ELANJIKKAL VILAKAM VEEDU, MULOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 582.

¶9

BY ADVS.SRI.V.S.THOSHIN SRI.I.ARIF MUHAMMAD

¶10

RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:

¶11

STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, THROUGH THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VIZHINJAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶12

BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT. SAREENA GEORGE

¶13

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

sts

¶15

CRL.M.C.NO.296/2016

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶18

ANNEX A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 07/12/2015 IN M.C.NO.249/2015 OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

¶19

RESPONDENT'S ANNEXURES: NIL

/TRUE COPY/

P.A.TO JUDGE

sts

B. KEMAL PASHA, J.

¶24

==================== CRL.M.C. No.296 of 2016

¶25

====================

¶26

Dated this the 5^th day of February, 2016

¶27

O R D E R

¶28

Annexure-A is under challenge. Through Annexure-A, the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram has initiated proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner, in MC249/15.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶30

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Annexure-A does not disclose as to the satisfaction of the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate that the presence of the petitioner would result in breach of the peace in the locality or it is likely that he would commit

¶31

CRL.M.C.No.296 of 2016

¶32

-: 2 :-

¶33

offences against Public tranquility. True that the petitioner is an accused in a case involving offence under Section 302 IPC; wherein he had allegedly committed the murder of his brother. The mere fact that the petitioner happens to be an accused in a criminal case does not necessarily invite sufficient grounds for proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

¶34

The order to be passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate should reflect the reasons for his satisfaction that the presence of the petitioner in the locality will result in the breach of the peace in the locality or that he is likely to commit offences against Public tranquility. Reasons for such satisfaction should find a place in the order. When those reasons are not mentioned, this Court is satisfied that Annexure-A is liable to be quashed. MC-249/15 is remitted to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate for enabling the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate to pass a speaking order.

¶35

In the result, this Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure-A

¶36

CRL.M.C.No.296 of 2016

¶37

-: 3 :-

¶38

order is quashed by remitting the matter to the learned Sub

¶39

Divisional Magistrate for fresh disposal, in accordance with

¶40

law.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

B. KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE.

¶43

DSV/5/2/16

¶44

// True Copy //

¶45

P.A. To Judge

Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satheesh Kumar v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Devaki Amma Vs State of Kerala

Girish Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Sanal Kumar Vs State of Kerala

Vinod K.C Vs Dr.Lal Parameswar

Anex Vs State of Kerala

Bhaskaran Panayanthatta Valappil Vs State of Kerala