Quashed

Santhosh Kumar R v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC24 Jun 2022Crl.MC/1217/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed a preliminary order invoking Section 107 Cr.P.C. for issuing a security bond, holding that the notice lacked required details and substantive material to support the Magistrate's subjective satisfaction, marking it an abuse of the process of law.

What did the court decide?

Crl.M.C. allowed; Annexure-A1 preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed.

Santhosh Kumar R Vs State of Kerala — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF JUNE 2022 / 3RD ASHADHA, 1944

¶5

CRL.MC NO. 1217 OF 2022

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2022 IN MC.NO.617/2021 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT, FORT KOCHI

¶7

PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

¶8

SANTHOSH KUMAR R, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O RAJU, MANKUZHITHUNDIYIL, CHALIKKAVATTOM, VENNALA P.O., PALARIVATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682028

¶9

BY ADVS. T.S.SARATH MANU RAMACHANDRAN M.KIRANLAL R.RAJESH (VARKALA) SAMEER M NAIR GEETHU KRISHNAN HARSHA SUSAN SAM

¶10

RESPONDENT/PETITIONERR & STATE:

¶11

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682031

¶12

2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682001

¶13

3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 682025 BY ADV SRI.M.P.PRASHANTH

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

¶15

24.06.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

¶17

CRL.MC NO. 1217 OF 2022

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in

¶20

M.C.No.617/2021 of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court. The aforesaid proceedings have been initiated under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. As part of the said proceedings, Annexure-A1 preliminary order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C has been issued against the petitioner directing him to show cause as to why the proceedings under Section 107 shall not be initiated against him and also as to why a direction to execute a security bond for Rs.1,00,000/(Rupees One lakh only) with two solvent sureties each for a period of one year under Section 107 of Cr. P.C shall not be issued to him. This Crl. M.C is filed challenging the aforesaid notice.

¶21

Heard Sri.T.S.Sarath, the learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.M.P.Prashanth, the Senior Public Prosecutor.

¶23

The specific case of the learned counsel for the

¶24

¶25

CRL.MC NO. 1217 OF 2022

¶26

petitioner is that Annexure A1 notice was issued without complying with the statutory requirements. It is pointed out that the contents of Annexure A1 would not disclose the substance of the information received. It also does not reflect the details on which the Sub Divisional Magistrate had arrived at a subjective satisfaction for invoking the provisions under Section 107 Cr.P.C.

¶27

On the other hand, the learned Public Prosecutor

¶28

opposes the same and relies on the statement submitted on behalf of the respondents. It is pointed out that the petitioner is involved in Crime No.884/2020 of Palarivattom Police Station, which was registered for the offences under Sections 341 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In the said circumstances, the learned Public Prosecutor seeks for dismissal of Crl.M.C.

¶29

I have gone through the records. On perusal of Annexure-A1, it can be seen that, apart from simply mentioning the crime number, no details of the offences

¶30

¶31

CRL.MC NO. 1217 OF 2022

¶32

allegedly committed by the petitioner have been mentioned. Even though it is stated that the petitioner/counter petitioner is indulging in activities endangering the peaceful atmosphere of the locality, absolutely no details thereof have been mentioned in the impugned order. According to the statement furnished on behalf of the respondents, the petitioner is involved in only one case wherein the offences involved are minor.

¶33

In such circumstances, it can be seen that, even

¶34

though the reason stated by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court for initiating the proceedings is the continuous actions of the petitioner, affecting the peaceful atmosphere of the locality, there are absolutely no materials to substantiate the same. Even in the statement, apart from the single crime mentioned above, no other antecedents of the petitioner are brought to notice.

¶35

In such circumstances, I am of the view that the

¶36

¶37

CRL.MC NO. 1217 OF 2022

¶38

proceedings against the petitioner are unwarranted and a clear abuse of the process of law. The subjective satisfaction claimed to have been arrived at by the Sub Divisional Magistrate cannot be treated as satisfaction obtained based on relevant materials, and under no circumstances the same it can be treated as a proper exercise of power. Therefore, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

¶39

In the result, this Crl.M.C is allowed, and Annexure-A1 preliminary order issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C in M.C.No.617 of 2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Fort Kochi and all further proceedings therein are hereby quashed.

¶40

Sd/- ZIYAD RAHMAN A.A., JUDGE

¶41

¶42

CRL.MC NO. 1217 OF 2022

¶43

¶44

APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 1217/2022

¶45

PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES:

¶46

ANNEXURE A1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN M.C 617/2021 OF THE HON'BLE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI ANNEXURE A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. 884/2020 OF PALARIVATTOM POLICE STATION DATED 24.10.2020

Santhosh Kumar R v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santhosh Kumar R 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

Jermaine Joseph Peter Vs State of Kerala

Abu Soofiyan Vs State of Kerala

Vishal Pavithran Vs State of Kerala

C.K Vijayan Vs Subash Vasudevan

Aminakutty Vs State Police Chief

Sandeep Sabhjeet Yadav Vs State of Kerala