A Magistrate must clearly state the substance of information for issuing a preliminary order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C.; lacking such clarity invalidates the order.

O R D E R

=========

This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner challenging Annexure A1 preliminary order in M.C.No. 96 of 2021 dated 09.11.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, 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 A1 order. Reliance is placed on the dictum laid down in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional Magistrate Monghyr and others [ 1970 KHC 635 ], Moidu v. State of Kerala [ 1982 KLT 578 ], Girish P. and others v. State of Kerala and another [2009 (4) KHC 929], Sharmina v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna [ 2025 (3) KHC 645 ]; Henry Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala [ 2009 (4) KLT 495 ] Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala and others [ 2014 (3) KLT 837 ] and Jayanth K.C. v. State of Kerala [ 2025 KHC OnLine 1591 ] and it is submitted that Annexure A1 order to the extent the substance of information therein does not meet the mandates laid down in the said precedents, is unsustainable in law.

4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions and submitted that the impugned order is validly rendered and does not merit any interference. It is submitted that the proceedings have been initiated against the accused validly after taking note of the serious charges that had already been levelled against him. It is prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.

5. Heard both sides. It is trite that whenever a Magistrate intends to proceed action under Section 107 , Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110 and 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, the terms for which it is to be enforced, and the number, character and class of sureties, if any, required. Any order issued without furnishing such details is non est. The term ‘substance of the information’ presupposes a clear and cogent summary of the information that was received by the Magistrate, which led him to the conclusion that a breach of the peace is likely at the behest of the person implicated. It should have reference to the essential and specific allegations that form the very basis on which the Magistrate takes action against the individual. What is thus intended is that the person should be able to prepare his defence before his liberty is curtailed [See Ismail Sahib v. State of Kerala [ 2023 (6) KHC 103 ]

6. In the case at hand, I note that Annexure 1 preliminary order issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. does not disclose any ‘substance of the information’. All that has been stated as the substance of the dispute is an enumeration of the charges as against the petitioner. Annexure A1 order does not constitute 'substance of the information' as envisaged in the provision. They are at the most some factual information and events anticipated/apprehended without any substantiation. Thus the course seen adopted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate while issuing Annexure A1 is contrary to what is envisaged under S