Allowed

Suo Motu v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC10 Sept 2018Crl.RC/6/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In suo motu proceedings, the High Court held that discharge orders passed by the Judicial Magistrate were illegal due to failure to record service of summons or return of non-bailable warrant. The court quashed the discharges and directed the magistrate to proceed with cases under law.

What did the court decide?

The criminal revision cases are allowed, the impugned discharge orders are set aside, and the magistrates are directed to take back the cases and proceed in accordance with law.

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala — Motor Accident Claims | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.ABRAHAM MATHEW

¶4

MONDAY ,THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 19TH BHADRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.RC.No. 6 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST ST 3587/2013 of J.M.F.C.-II, KOLLAM

¶7

PETITIONER:

¶8

SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS

¶9

AS PER THE RESOLUTION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18/09/2017

¶10

RESPONDENTS :

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE KOTTIYAM CR. 719/2013

¶12

2 SHYJU S/O. JOSEPH, SHYJU NIVAS, NEW COLONY, KAKKATHOPPE, THEKKUMBHAGAM CHERRY, ERAVIPURAM VILLAGE

¶13

SRI.ALEX M.THOMBRA, SR.PP

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.9.2018 ALONG WITH CRL.R.C. NOS. 14, 22, 32, 33, 35, 37, 40, 43, 61, 67, 72/2017 & 5, 7, 12, 18, 19, 28, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 55, 58, 60, 61, 62, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 86, 91, 95, 97, 98, 106, 107, 111, 118, 120, 134, 136/2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING.

¶15

Crl.R.C. Nos.14, 22, 32, 33, 35, 37, 40, 43, 61, 67,72/ 2017 & 5, 6, 7, 12, 18, 19, 28, 35, 39, 42, 43, 44, 45, 55, 58,60, 61, 62, 71, 72, 73, 75, 78, 80, 81,82, 83, 86, 91,95, 97, 98, 106, 107, 111, 118, 120, 134, 136/2018

¶16

-:2:-

¶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.35, 43, 61, 67 of 2017 and Crl.R.C. Nos.7, 45, 61, and 134 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

¶22

¶23

-:3:-

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

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.14, 22, 33 and 35 of 2017 and Crl.R.C Nos.6, 42, 44, 45, 61, 80, 86, 106 and 136 of 2018. In the rest of the cases the learned Magistrate passed the following two word order: “Accused discharged”.

¶27

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

¶28

¶29

-:4:-

¶30

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.

¶31

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 the accused is absconding.

¶32

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.

¶33

In the result, these criminal revision cases are allowed. The orders passed by the learned Magistrate in Summary Trial Case Nos.519, 177, 1571, 1018, 1008, 604, 917, 767, 2517, 2670, 3304, 3497, 3587, 3596, 3620, 3698, 3606, 3514, 4233, 3975, 3972, 3963, 4590, 4594, 4578, 4321, 4328, 4270, 4285, 4359, 4407, 3898, 4017, 3826, 4645, 4630, 4631, 4670, 4601, 4603,

¶34

¶35

-:5:-

¶36

4899, 4963, 4955, 5050, 5036, 5005, 4946, 4761, 5104 and 5197 of 2013 are set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to take back the case on his file and proceed it in accordance with law.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

K.ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE

¶39

vps 8/9

¶40

/TRUE COPY/

¶41

PS TO JUDGE

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

Ratheesh Vs State of Kerala

Abdul Sathar Vs Sasi Chittil

Aravind Shankar Vs the State of Kerala

Clement, Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala

Suo Motu Vs State of Kerala