SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 3607

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SYAM KUMAR V.M., J
AJESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. MOHANLAL
For the Respondents: SANAL P. RAJ,PP

Table of Content
1. challenging preliminary order under section 111 cr.p.c. (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's observation on procedural compliance. (Para 5 , 6)

ORDER

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure A2 preliminary order in M.C.No. 483 of 2020 dated 26.03.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Punalur, under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.).

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had in a rather mechanical exercise of jurisdiction, issued preliminary order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. There has been no proper application of mind. The mandatory requirements to be complied with before proceeding to issue a preliminary order under Section 111 have not been met. The legal stipulation that the substance of information, based on which the proceedings are initiated, should be explained in an order issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. has not been met while issuing Annexure A2 order. Reliance is placed on the dictum l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top