Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 38791
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
V. G. Arun, J
RAVEEN V R @SANKAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 5011 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.J.VISHNU, SMT.ANU BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.G.J.RAJMOHAN
For the Respondents: SRI. M.C. ASHI, SR.PP.
The court emphasizes the importance of considering a petitioner's minor status and acquittals when evaluating ongoing legal proceedings against them.
Headnote:(A) BNSS - Section 130 - Preliminary order challenged in Crl.M.C regarding multiple allegations against the petitioner, who has been acquitted in one case and is not accused in another - Court allows petitioner to submit explanation to show cause notice, in view of minor status during the time of prior incidents, and his political activism. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Judicial procedure - Emphasis on adherence to Section 135 procedures during inquiries, with consideration of the petitioner’s acquittal and past minor involvement in specified crimes. (Paras 2, 5)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is a political activist facing multiple charges, with past acquittals and minor status during prior incidents being highlighted.
Findings of Court:
Petitioner allowed to submit explanation to show cause notice; the inquiry should follow legal procedures.
Issues: The main issue was the legitimacy of implicating the petitioner in serious offences based on past allegations.
Ratio Decidendi: The court mandates that prior minor status and acquittal be weighed during inquiries into current allegations, preserving the petitioner’s legal rights.
Result: The Crl.M.C is permitted for the petitioner to file his explanation.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court examines petitioner's prior minor status and acquittals. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the legitimacy of the show cause notice. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court directs legal procedure adherence during inquiry. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
Dated this the 26th day of June, 2025 The challenge in this Crl.M.C is against Annexure A1 preliminary order under Section 130 of BNSS issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram. The order is issued on the basis of a report submitted by the Inspector of Police, Nemom, the gist of which is reproduced in the order and extracted hereunder for easy reference;
“• The Counter-Petitioner was charged with criminal cases in Nemom Police Station as per : Crime No. 838/2017 Sec.294(b),341,323,324,34 IPC ,1183/2017 Sec.294(b),323,324,458,34 IPC, 486/2021 Sec.143,147,148,149,341,323, 324,308,153 IPC, 285/2022 Sec.294(b),341, 323,&324IPC,806/2021Sec.341,323,427,34IPC 1098/2022Sec.341,294(b),506(i),34IPC,1101/
2022Sec.294(b),323,324,341,448,506,34 IPC, 281/2025 Sec.126(2),115(2),118(1),110,3(5)
BNS”
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, out of the eight crimes mentioned above, the petitioner stands acquitted in Crime No.1098 of 2022 and is not an accused in Crime No.806 of 2021. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel that in Crime Nos.838 of 2017 and 1183 of 2017, the petitioner was let off with an admonition by the Juvenile Justice Board, as he was minor when the incident occurred. Finally, it is submitted that the petitioner is a political activist and for that reason, even minor incidents are blown out of proportion so as to implicate him in crimes alleging serious offences and include his name in the station crime history sheet.
3. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the Crl.M.C is liable to be dismissed as the challenge is against a show cause notice. According to the Public Prosecutor, the contentions now raised ought to be urged before the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
4. In reply, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Executive Magistrates normally compel the counter petitioners to execute bonds on the very first day of their appearance.
5. In view of the above submissions, the Crl.M.C is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to file his explanation to the show cause notice within two weeks of receipt of a copy of this order. If the explanation is filed within the time granted, the Sub Divisional Magistrate shall conduct enquiry in strict adherence to the procedure stipulated in Section 135 of the BNSS . While conducting such enquiry, the fact that the petitioner was a minor when he was implicated in crimes in 2017, his acquittal in one of the crimes and the fact that he is not an accused in another crime should be taken into consideration.
The petitioner’s right to challenge the final order, if so warranted, is left open.
