SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Ker) 729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Aji R. S/o Ravi – Petitioner
Versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. M.C. No. 5492 of 2024
Decided On : 15-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rameez Nooh, Ronit Zachariah, Amin Ali Ashraf, Badir Sadique, Fathima K.
For the Respondent: Renjit George.

IMPORTANT POINT
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 character of sureties required.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 107 - Cr.P.C. Sections 107, 111 - The court emphasized that an order under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. must include the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force, and the character of sureties required. The absence of these details renders the order invalid. The court referenced previous decisions to highlight the necessity of these legal provisions to ensure the accused can adequately defend against the allegations.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, accused in Crime No. 288/2022, challenged an order from the Sub Divisional Magistrate requiring him to show cause for executing a bond under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. The order was based solely on one crime without detailing the necessity for such proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the order did not comply with the requirements of Section 111 of the Cr.P.C., which mandates that the substance of the information and other essential details must be included in the order. The lack of these details indicated a failure of due process.

Issues: Whether the order issued under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was valid given the absence of necessary details as required by Section 111.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that an order under Section 107 must contain specific information to allow the accused to defend themselves adequately. The failure to provide such information renders the order invalid.

Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate and remitted the matter back for a fresh order that complies with the legal requirements within 30 days.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Miscellaneous Case has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the Cr.P.C.’ hereinafter), by the petitioner, who is the accused in Crime No. 288/2022 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam, now pending as M.C.No. 504/2024 on the files of the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court, Kollam and the prayer herein is as under:

To call for the records pertaining Annexure A Order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam in MC No. 504/2024 issued under Section 111 r/w 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and quash the same as against the petitioner alone with all its consequential proceedings for the ends of justice.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused Annexure A order and relevant decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, going by Annexure A order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kollam against the petitioner herein, there was direction to show cause why proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. could not be taken against him so as to execute bond for Rs.1 Lakh, referring only one crime, viz., Crime No. 288/2022 of East Kallada Police Station, Kollam, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 354 and 427 r/w Section 149 of the Indian penal Code. It is submitted that the order does not speak about the necessity of invoking Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that this Court considered this issue in its earlier decisions and the order impugned does not justify the essentials set out in the said decisions.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed decision of this Court in Girish P. and Others v. State of Kerala and Another, 2009 (4) KHC 929. In the said case, this Court considered a case where the facts of the case as under:

The Sub Divisional Magistrate passed an order against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure asking the petitioners to show cause why they shall not execute a bond for Rs.5000/-each with two sureties for the same for keeping peace for a term of one year. Petitioners challenge the order on the ground that the order is only an abuse of process of the Court and in spite of the mandate under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the substance of the information based on which proceedings was initiated, is not shown in the order. Court on an appreciation of the law held that unless the substance of the information is not stated in the order passed under Section 107, the order is bad in law.

Allowing the petition, this Court held as under:

Section 111 mandates that when a Magistrate acting under Section 107, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause, 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, the necessity to set forth "the substance of the information" in the order under Section 111 is not an empty formality and is with a purpose. It is to enable the person against whom the order is passed, to appear and show cause before the Magistrate that the allegations are not correct. Unless that information is furnished to the person against whom the order is passed, he cannot defend the allegation as against him. Annexure I order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate does not disclose the substance of the information received by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on which he was satisfied that proceedings under Section 107 is to be initiated. The fact that petitioners are involved in Crime 207/2009 by itself is not a ground, to initiate proceedings, under Section 107.

Another decision pointed out by the learned counsel in Santhosh M.V. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others, 2014 (2)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top