Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P. G. Ajithkumar, J
SUO MOTU – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Crl.RC 184/2018
Jurisdiction - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 258, 398 - Court highlighted the arbitrary invocation of Section 258 and the necessity of proper notice to the accused, influencing the decision to close the proceedings due to the absence of service of notice.
Fact of the Case:
Revision cases initiated suo motu after lower court discharged accused under Section 258 of the CrPC without proper attempts to procure their presence or verify addresses, resulting in notices being undelivered.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower court's discharge of the accused was arbitrary, as proper steps to ensure notice service were not taken, impacting the proceedings' validity.
Issues: The core issue was whether the lower court properly invoked Section 258 of the CrPC without ensuring the accused's presence through adequate notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that Section 258 cannot be arbitrarily applied and requires verifiable attempts to serve notices, particularly in non-petty summons cases.
Final Decision: The proceedings were closed due to the lack of likelihood of serving notices on the accused.
O R D E R
These revision cases were initiated suo motu. The proceedings in the cases concerned were stopped by the court below invoking the provisions of Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 . Noticing that the court below exercised jurisdiction under Section 258 of the Code in an arbitrary manner and the accused were acquitted without taking sufficient steps to ascertain whether presence of the accused concerned could be procured, these revision cases were initiated.
2. In these cases, notices were ordered to be served on the party respondents who are the accused in the respective cases. Notice was issued on several occasions from this Court. But could not be served. As per the order dated 27.03.2018, this Court directed the District Police Chief, Kollam to constitute a special squad to ensure that the notices are served on the respective accused. Despite taking earnest efforts by the police, notices could not be served on the accused concerned.
3. Every time, the notice has been returned with the endorsement 'addressee not found'.
4. I am convinced that notice is not able to be served on the party respondent-accused for want of correct/ sufficient address. What can be inferred is that the address was collected by the police at the time of initiation of the case, without proper verification. Either the accused concerned would have given incorrect address purposefully or that the accused shifted residence without a possibility of ascertaining their present address and whereabouts.
5. As per the orders impugned in these revision cases, the accused were discharged. In view of the proviso to Section 398 of the Code, no order to inquire into the case, where the accused has been discharged, is possible unless such person has been given an opportunity of being heard. Therefore service of notice on the party respondents-accused is necessary if to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the court below for inquiring into or trying the offence. In none of these cases, there is a likelyhood of giving notice to the party respondent-accused.
6. A Division Bench of this Court considered the situations when Section 258 of the Code can be invoked in a summons case which does not qualify to be termed as a petty case, in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and another [2023 KHC OnLine 821]. It was held:
“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.”
7. The details of the offences involved in these cases are tabulated below:
| Crl.R.C.No. | ST/SC No. | Offence |
| 142 of 2018 | S.T.No.5183\nof 2013 | Section 279 IPC & Section 185,\n3(1) r/w 181 of the M.V. Act |
| 147 of 2018 | S.T.No.5147\nof 2013 | Section 279 IPC & Section 185,\n146 r/w 196 of the M.V. Act |
| 148 of 2018 | S.T.No.5074\nof 2013 | Section 279 IPC & Section 185\nof the M.V Act |
| 151 of 2018 | S.T.No.5382\nof 2013 | Section 279 IPC & Section 185\nof the M.V. Act |
| 152 of 2018 | S.T.No.5350\nof 2013 | Section 279 IPC & 3(1) r/w\n181,185 r/w 195 of MV Act |
| 155 of 2018 | S.T.No.5340\nof 2013 | Section 15(c) r/w 63 of Abkari\nAct |
| 158 of 2018 | S.T.No.5674\nof 2013 | Section 279 IPC and Section\n185 of t |
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
