IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V.G.ARUN, J.
Suhyb P.J S/o. Jamaludheen - Appellant
Vs.
State Of Kerala - Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 65, 73, 74, 85, 86 OF 2025
Decided On : 23-06-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. custodial allegations require careful procedural adherence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. contentions on procedural violations and bias of the magistrate. (Para 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments countering the necessity of protective procedural requirements. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's observations on statutory protections for public servants. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. cognizance issuance against public servants requires adherence to protocol. (Para 16) |
| 6. direction to magistrate for compliant proceedings. (Para 17) |
ORDER :
V.G.ARUN, J.
Petitioners are forest officials, the 1st petitioner being the Divisional Forest Officer, Marayoor Forest Division and the 2nd petitioner, the Range Forest Officer. Three crimes were registered at the Marayoor Forest Range as O.R.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 for offences under Sections 27 (1)(d), 27(1)(e)(ii), 27(1) (e)(iii) and 27(1)(e)(iv) read with Sections 47C and 47G of the Kerala Forest Act against certain persons including the 2nd respondents herein. As the facts in Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025 are slightly different from those in Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025, the two sets of cases are dealt with separately.
Crl.M.C.Nos.73, 74 and 85 of 2025
Pursuant to the registration of O.R.Nos.1,2 and 3 of 2024, Vinod, the 5th accused in O.R.No.1 of 2025, was arrested and his confession statement recorded on 14.11.2024. During his confession, Vinod revealed the names of Sarath @ Siva, Soorya, Suresh and Liju @ Jithu as participants in the crime. Thereafter, the 1st accused Sarath was taken into custody on 18.11.2024. In the confession statement of Sarath recorded on 19.11.2024, he mentioned about the involvement of others named Manoj, Rajesh and Jaleel. Thereupon, Manoj, Rajesh and Jaleel were arrested on 21.11.2024. After recording their arrest the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam and remanded to judicial custody. While so, the petitioners sought the custody of Sarath, Manoj and Rajesh for the purpose of interrogation. The learned Magistrate allowed the prayer and granted custody from 04.12.2024 to 09.12.2024. On completion of the custody period the accused were produced before the Magistrate on 09.12.2024. Later in the day, after meeting their lawyer, the accused complained to the Magistrate that they were subjected to extreme harassment and physical torture by the petitioners.
The Magistrate thereupon directed the accused to be taken for medical examination. After returning from the hospital, Sarath, Manoj and Rajesh submitted written complaints to the Magistrate. The Magistrate accepted the complaints and recorded the sworn statements of the accused on 21.12.2024. Based on the complaints and the sworn statements, the Magistrate took cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 120(1), 127(2), 194 and 351(1) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS and issued summons to the petitioners. The cases were thereupon numbered as C.C.Nos.613, 612 and 614 of 2024 on the files of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Devikulam.
Crl.M.C.Nos.65 and 86 of 2025
The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.65 of 2025 is the 4th accused in O.R.No.1 of 2024 and was arrested on 14.11.2024. While continuing in judicial custody, the 2nd respondent submitted a complaint alleging physical torture while he was in the custody of the petitioners. Thereupon, the Magistrate issued notice under Section 223 (1) of BNSS to the petitioners.
2. The 2nd respondent in Crl.M.C.No.86 of 2025 is the 5th accused in O.R.No.3 of 2024. He was arrested on 21.11.2024 and at the request of the petitioners, the 2nd respondent was given to their custody from 23.11.2024 to 26.11.2024. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent submitted Annexure B complaint to the Magistrate on 17.12.2024, and the Magistrate issued notices to the petitioners under Section 223 (1) of B NSS.
3. Heard Advs.Babu S. Nair for the petitioners, Thomas J Anakallungal and Sreelakshmi Sabu for the accused. Adv.Nagaraj Narayanan, the Special Go
Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh and Others v. Jammal Patel and Others
The court ruled that custodial allegations against public servants require adherence to statutory procedures, including allowing the accused an opportunity to respond before cognizance can be taken.
Magistrate must mandatorily comply with Section 175(4) BNSS safeguards—report from public servant's superior and consideration of servant's assertions—before ordering FIR under 175(3) against officia....
A Magistrate must examine the complainants and witnesses before issuing notices to the accused under Section 223(1) of BNSS, 2023, ensuring compliance with procedural mandates.
Cognizance of offences – Notice is to be issued to accused only after examination of Complainant and present witnesses.
(1) Commission of offence by public servant in course of discharge of his official duty – Sub-section (4) of Section 175 is neither an independent / a standalone provision nor a proviso to sub-sectio....
Failure to comply with procedural safeguards in the registration of FIR against public servants, specifically ignoring the necessity of a report from a superior officer, renders the Magistrate's orde....
The court clarified that Section 175(4) of the BNSS is discretionary, not mandatory, allowing the Magistrate to independently decide on investigations without undue influence from prior orders.
Public servants are not immune from prosecution for criminal acts committed outside the scope of their official duties, and FIR registration is mandatory when a cognizable offense is reported.
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.