Allowed

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC14 Sept 2018Crl.RC/139/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suo motu revision, the Kerala High Court quashed orders of discharge by a JMFC-Kollam, holding them illegal because the Magistrate failed to follow mandatory procedures regarding absconding accused under the Cr.P.C.

What did the court decide?

The orders of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate in the listed Summary Trial Cases are set aside, and the trial court is directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala — Kerala HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

FRIDAY ,THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 23RD BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.RC.No. 139 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN ST 5082/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SUO MOTU

¶9

PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18.09.17.

¶10

BY ADV. .

¶11

RESPONDENTS:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOLLAM EAST, CR. 1176/2013.

¶13

2 SAJEEV S/O. ABDUL KHADER, RIZLAL, I. T. I. JUNCTION, CHANDANATHOPPU, KOTTAMKARA VILLAGE.

¶14

PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.C.S.HRITHWIK SENIOR

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE ALONG WITH Crl.R.C. 137, 143, 144, 145, 150, 153, 166, 168, 169, 170, 219, 220, 221, 222, 234, 235, 236, 241, 242, 251, 260, 261, 262, 265,270, 274, 304, 305, 306, 313, 318, 320, 324, 331, 332, 334, 337, 340, 347, 365, 366, 367, 372, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381 & 382/2018 HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.R.C. 139, 137, 143, 144, 145, 150, 153, 166, 168, 169, 170, 219, 220, 221, 222, 234, 235, 236, 241, 242, 251, 260, 261, 262, 265, 270, 274, 304, 305, 306, 313, 318, 320, 324, 331, 332, 334, 337, 340, 347, 365, 366, 367, 2 372, 377, 378, 379, 380, 381 & 382/2018

¶17

ORDER

¶18

These criminal revision cases were registered suo motu by this court on its noticing that the order of discharge passed by the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Kollam in the cases covered by these criminal revision cases is illegal.

¶19

Though notice was served on the second respondent in each case, who were the accused in the court below, they have not appeared in person or through counsel.

¶20

All the cases are registered in the court below as Summary Trial Cases.

¶21

In the Summary Trial Cases, except those covered by Crl.R.C. Nos.139, 143, 144, 145, 150, 166, 168, 169, 170, 219, 220, 234, 235, 236, 241, 242, 251, 260, 261, 262, 265, 270, 304, 306, 313, 318, 320, 324, 331, 334, 337, 340, 347, 365, 366, 372, 377, 378, 379, 381, 382, of 2018, the second respondent-accused allegedly committed the offence under Section 279 IPC. In most of these cases the second respondent also allegedly committed the offence under Section 185 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in a few cases the offence under Section 181 r/w Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act and some other offences under the Motor Vehicles Act.

¶22

¶23

In the cases other than those referred to above, the second respondent/accused allegedly committed certain offences under the Abkari Act.

¶24

In the Summary Trial Cases in respect of which the following criminal revision cases were registered, the substance of the order passed by the learned Magistrate is that the 'accused deemed absconding, proceedings stopped and accused discharged': Crl R.C. Nos.221, 262 and 331 of 2018. In the rest of the cases the learned Magistrate passed the following two word order: “Accused discharged”.

¶25

It is seen from the proceedings sheet in the above cases that the learned Magistrate ordered issuance of summons to the second respondent/accused. Thereafter he ordered issuance of non-bailable arrest warrant. It was thereafter the order of discharge was passed. The learned Magistrate has not recorded that the summons was served on the second respondent or that non-bailable arrest warrant was returned unexecuted. It is not even clear whether the process was actually issued from the court.

¶26

Even if it is assumed that the accused were absconding, the learned Magistrate should have initiated proceedings against them under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. The power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised to stop the proceedings on the mere ground that

¶27

¶28

the accused is absconding.

¶29

Thus, in any view of the matter, the order passed by the learned Magistrate in each of these criminal revision cases is patently illegal. It is liable to be set aside.

¶30

In the result, these criminal revision cases are allowed. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate in Summary Trial Case Nos.5339, 5082, 5131, 5094, 5186, 5774, 5578, 5427, 5599, 5589, 5355, 7267, 7265, 7259, 7247, 7270, 7255, 6278, 6274, 6218, 7232, 8351, 8357, 8360, 8312, 8247, 8268, 8153, 8166, 8173, 8185, 9142, 9117, 9280, 7517, 7530, 7559, 7225, 7566, 9325, 9231, 9222, 8896, 8007, 7991, 7989, 7972, 7981, 7978 and 7958 of 2013 are set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to take back the cases on his file and proceed with them in accordance with law.

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶33

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suo Motu 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

Adarsh George Vs State of Kerala

Vimal Kumar Vs Rajesh I.N.

Sreeraj Alies Kuttan Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Bhuvanachandran Vs State of Kerala

Jayakumar Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala