JUDGMENT :

(A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.)

This O.P.(Crl.) was instituted suo motu by the High Court pursuant to the resolution dated 22.08.2023 of the Administrative Committee of this Court. The file has been placed before us pursuant to a direction of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice.

2. The trigger for registering the suo motu case appears to have been the burgeoning figures showing the pendency of petty cases before the various Magistrate Courts in the State. Statistics show that, as of now, 1.59 lakhs of petty cases are pending before various Magistrate Courts across the State. An enquiry into the reasons for these alarming figures reveal that a significant number of those cases represent instances where the prosecution has been unable to secure the presence of the accused either because the address furnished is fake or incomplete or for such other reasons. It is stated that while in the past, the Magistrates used to rely on the provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [hereinafter referred to as the “Cr.P.C.”] to stop the proceedings in cases where the presence of the accused could not be secured despite the earnest efforts of the prosecution, they have since desisted from the said course of action owing to the orders of this Court dated 10.09.2018 in Crl.R.C.No.5 of 2018 and connected cases and 20.05.2019 in Crl.R.C.No.1869 of 2018 and connected cases - [2019 (3) KLT 98], both of which orders were passed in Suo Motu proceedings initiated by this Court pursuant to the resolution dated 18.09.2017 of an earlier Administrative Committee of this Court.

3. Considering the importance of the issue involved, we appointed Adv. Nandagopal S. Kurup as amicus curiae to assist the court. We heard the learned amicus curiae and the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. S.U.Nazar.

4. Sri. Nandagopal S. Kurup submitted that Section 258 of Cr.P.C which gives discretionary power to the Magistrate to stop the proceedings of a summons case instituted on police report could be invoked when there exists serious defect in the prosecution cases, which go to the root of the matter, rendering further proceedings impossible or futile. According to the learned amicus curiae, the absence of correct address of the accused in the prosecution records and the impossibility to locate the whereabouts of the accused is a serious defect making it impossible for the court to proceed further. Per Contra Sri. S.U.Nazar submitted that in summons case, the trial commences when the accused appears or is brought before the Magistrate, and the word ‘at any stage’ found in Section 258 contemplates any stage after the appearance of the accused before the Magistrate and before passing of any order of acquittal or conviction.

5. As the issue referred to us pertains to the scope and extent of the powers available to a Magistrate under Section 258 of the Cr.P.C, it would be profitable to notice the statutory provisions that have a bearing on the said issue. Section 258 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:

“S. 258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.- In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.”

It is clear from a reading of the aforesaid provision that in a summons-case instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, the Magistrate may stop the proceedings at any stage, and if he does so after the evidence of the principal witnesses is recorded, it will be an order of acquittal, and in any other case, he may direct the release of the accused, in which case, such release will h