The failure to serve a preliminary order under the BNSS invalidates the Magistrate's subsequent order; procedural legal safeguards must be met.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS FRIDAY, THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 2ND KARTHIKA, 1947 CRL.MC NO. 9457 OF 2025 CRIME NO.449/2025 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station, Ernakulam AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.654 OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN PETITIONER/COUNTER PETITIONER:

ROBIN @ MUVAD AGED 27 YEARS S/O. PUSHPANANDHAN, KURUNGOTTUKUDIYIL HOUSE, MOKKERI KURARA, P. O. MOKKERI, KANNUR,, PIN - 670692 BY ADVS.

SRI.K.R.VINOD SMT.M.S.LETHA SMT.ATHIRA K.S.

SMT.M S MALAVIKA RESPONDENT/PETITIONER:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, KOCHI –, PIN - 682031 PP SRI M P PRASANTH THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

C.S.DIAS, J --------------------------------------------

CRL.MC No. 9457 OF 2025 ---------------------------------------------

Dated this the 24th day of October, 2025

ORDER

The petitioner is the counter-petitioner in M.C.No.654/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi. The petitioner has reliably learnt that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has passed Annexure A1 order under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita , 2023 (for short, ‘ BNSS ’). In fact the petitioner has not received any show cause notice or preliminary order from the Sub Divisional Magistrate as contemplated under Section 126 of the . Hence, Annexure A1 order is erroneous and illegal and may be quashed.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served with a preliminary order as per the mandate under Section 126 r/w Section 130 of the BNSS . Moreover, the substance of the information is not mentioned in the said order. The Sub Divisional Magistrate has only mentioned the details of the case, which is not sufficient.

Therefore, Annexure A1 order may be quashed.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor, on instruction, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner was not served with a preliminary order as envisaged under Section 130 of the BNSS .

5. In the above context it is necessary to refer to Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS , which corresponds to the erstwhile Sections 107 and 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,which reads as follows:

126. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.

(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.

130. When a Magistrate acting under section 126, section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, t