The court affirmed that a Magistrate can stop proceedings under Section 258 Cr.P.C. if the accused cannot be procured or the costs exceed the maximum fine, provided reasons are recorded.

ORDER :

P.SOMARAJAN, J.

[Crl.RC Nos.1210/2018, 1212/2018, 1215/2018, 1218/2018, 1222/2018, 1224/2018, 1225/2018, 1226/2018, 1228/2018, 1229/2018, 1230/2018, 1237/2018, 1239/2018, 1240/2018, 1248/2018, 1252/2018, 1262/2018, 1264/2018, 1266/2018, 1278/2018, 1279/2018, 1298/2018, 1299/2018, 1304/2018, 1315/2018, 1317/2018, 1321/2018, 1325/2018, 1329/2018, 1343/2018, 1346/2018, 1347/2018, 1351/2018, 1356/2018, 1359/2018, 1364/2018, 1366/2018, 1370/2018, 1391/2018, 1394/2018, 1396/2018, 1398/2018, 1406/2018, 1407/2018, 1410/2018, 1415/2018, 1417/2018, 1420/2018, 1431/2018, 1432/2018]

Suo motu proceedings were initiated against the order of acquittal on the ground that the jurisdiction under Section 258 Cr.P.C. was exercised without any sufficient ground and without the compliance of requirement as mandated.

2. Section 258 Cr.P.C. is extracted below for reference:

“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.”

3. In a summons case, it is permissible for the Magistrate, for the reason to be recorded, to stop further proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and to release the accused which will have the effect of a discharge or in the case of recording of statement of principal witness to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, if it is found that the accused could not be procured within a reasonable time or cost of procuring the accused would exceed the maximum fine amount that can be imposed for the offence alleged against.

4. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the application of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in a summons case in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821). The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below for reference:

“ii. In the case of those summons-cases instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, which do not qualify as petty offences, where the prosecution files a report stating unambiguously that despite its best efforts at locating the accused, it has not been successful in securing the presence of the accused before the Magistrate, the Magistrate concerned shall scrutinise the report submitted by the prosecution to satisfy himself/herself of the fact that reasonably sufficient steps have been taken by the prosecution to ensure the presence of the accused and that the costs of ensuring the appearance of such accused far exceed the maximum fine that is prescribed under the Statute for the offence concerned. In the event of the Magistrate being satisfied of both of the aspects mentioned above, then it would be permissible for the Magistrate to record an order of stoppage of proceedings in accordance with Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.”

5. Being the legal position settled as above, it is within the jurisdiction of the trial court/concerned Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. on its satisfaction that the presence of the accused could not be procured in spite of attempt or that the cost of ensuring/procuring the accused would exceed the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence.

These cases would squarely fall under the purview of Section 258 Cr.P.C.. Hence, stoppage of proceedings by the learned Magistrate deserves no interference. The revisions fail and are closed.