IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
Ismail Sahib, S/o Mian Khan – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala Represented By the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 735 OF 2022
Decided On : 18-08-2023
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to quash a summons issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor in M.C. No.90 of 2021.Finding of the Court:
The court found that the order did not comply with the procedure laid down in Section 111 of Cr.P.C., and therefore, it was illegal and liable to be quashed.Issues:
The main issue was whether the order complied with the requirements of Section 111 of Cr.P.C.Ratio Decidendi:
The court held that an order made under Sections 107, 108, 109, or 110 of Cr.P.C. must contain specific details as provided in Section 111, failing which it would be non-est and liable to be set aside.Final Decision:
The court quashed the Annexure-1 order and allowed the petition, but clarified that it would not bar the Sub Divisional Magistrate from issuing an appropriate order following the mode provided under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.ORDER :
This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience) to quash Annexure-1 summons dated 22.10.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Adoor in M.C. No.90 of 2021.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Annexure-1 summons issued in form No.1 as per Section 61 of Cr.P.C. is not in conformity with the procedure laid down in Section 111 of Cr.P.C. and Section 111 of Cr.P.C. provides the manner in which order under Sections 107, 108, 109 or 110 of Cr.P.C. to be made.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on perusal of Annexure-1, non compliance of Section 111 Cr.P.C. is apparent and therefore the order is perse illegal. Therefore, the quashment as such is liable to be allowed.
5. The learned Public Prosecutor also could not justify the order because the order does not depict the procedure provided under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
6. The point arises for determination is; how an order to be made under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 110 of Cr.P.C.
7. Section 111 of Cr.P.C. provides as under:
“111. Order to be made
When a Magistrate acting under section 107, section 108, section 109, or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required.”
8. On perusal of Annexure-1 order, it has been stated that the attendance of the petitioner is necessary to answer a charge under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and thereby he was directed to appear in person on 26.11.2021. In this context, it is discernible that the order impugned doesn't contain the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required. Therefore, the non-compliance of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. is vivid and the order which doesn't contain the above details cannot sustain in the eye of law.
9. Thus, it is the mandate that whenever a Magistrate intents to proceed acting under section 107, section 108, section 109, or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of sureties (if any), required and without furnishing such details, the order will be non-est. Therefore, the order is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, Annexure-1 order stands quashed and this petition stands allowed.
However, it is specifically made clear that quashment of Annexure-1 shall not be a bar for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to issue appropriate order and to proceed under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. following the mode provided under Section 111 of Cr.P.C and as described herein above.
AI
Non-compliance of Section 111 of Cr.P.C. renders the order illegal
Show cause under Section 111can be issued only after an order is made in writing by the SubDivisional Magistrate, setting forth the substance of the information received etc.
An order under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is invalid if it does not include the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force, and the charact....
A Magistrate's order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. must contain a clear summary of information; failure to do so renders the order invalid.
A preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. must disclose 'substance of the information' for validity; failure to do so renders the order non est.
A preliminary order under Section 111 Cr.P.C. must include a clear substance of information; failure to do so invalidates the order.
A preliminary order under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. must provide a cogent summary of the information; failure to do so renders it invalid.
Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. mandates the provision of substantial information in preliminary orders, failing which, such orders become unsustainable.
A Magistrate must clearly state the substance of information for issuing a preliminary order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.; lacking such clarity invalidates the order.
A Magistrate must provide substantive information when issuing orders under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.