Judicial fairness requires that parties be served with copies of orders to challenge them; proceeding without service undermines due process.

JUDGMENT :

P.V.Kunhikrishnan, J.

These original petitions are filed by one and the same person, and the prayers are almost the same. Therefore, I am disposing of these original petitions by a common judgment.

2. The petitioner is the complainant in five different cases filed by him against Jayaprakash E.P. and Ashakumari R. The offence alleged in these complaints is under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The pre-cognizance enquiry is going on in all these cases. The petitioner gave sworn statements in all these cases. The petitioner wants to adduce evidence by examining his own son. An application is filed to examine the son of the petitioner at the pre-cognizance stage, as evidenced by Ext.P2 applications in these cases. The grievance of the petitioner is that the above applications were dismissed, and the cases are now posted for final order on 07.10.2025. The petitioner applied for a copy of these orders. Ext.P3 is produced to show that the petitioner submitted a copy application. The grievance of the petitioner is that without serving a copy of the order, which the petitioner has to challenge, the learned Magistrate is going to pass orders in the complaint. Hence, these original petitions.

3. Heard the petitioner who appeared as a party in person. No notice is necessary to the respondents at this stage. If the respondents are aggrieved by any of the directions issued by this Court, they are free to file a review petition before this Court.

4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that, after passing an order in an application on 29.09.2025, and without giving a copy of this order, the learned Magistrate is proceeding further. This Court, in Ext.P4 judgment, observed that such practice is to be deprecated. That order was also passed in connection with a case in Ernakulam District itself. I am of the considered opinion that the District Judge, Ernakulam should circulate a copy of Ext.P4 judgment to all the judicial Officers in the district.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I think there can be a direction to the court concerned to issue a copy of the order passed in Ext.P2 application within a time frame, and till then, further proceedings in the complaint can be deferred. Therefore, these original petitions are disposed of with the following directions:

1) The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-VIII, Ernakulam, is directed to issue a copy of the order passed in Ext.P2 as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

2) The further proceedings in Ext.P1 complaints in these cases shall be deferred for a period of two weeks.

3) The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the District Judge, Ernakulam, and the District Judge, Ernakulam, will circulate a copy of the Ext.P4 judgment to all the judicial officers of that district.