Procedural adherence by the Magistrate is crucial; failure to comply with statutory requirements invalidates orders.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the defacto complainant in Crime No.1003 of 2022 of Thambanoor Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram. The accused is alleged to have committed offences punishable under Sections 279 , 337 and 338 of IPC and Section 146 r/w Section 196 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The Police completed investigation and submitted final report. The Judicial First Class Magistrate Court III, Thiruvananthapuram, took cognizance of the offences. The learned Magistrate, as per order dated 26.05.2025, stopped the proceedings under Section 258 of Cr.P.C.

2. The defacto complainant challenges that order on the following grounds:

(a) From the face of the impugned order it is illegal, as it has been printed in a format.

(b) The learned Magistrate has not recorded any satisfactory reasons for stopping the proceedings under Section 281 of the BNSS. The report of the Police that the accused is not traceable is per se illegal, as she appeared before the MACT upon receiving summons.

(c) The learned Magistrate has not considered the guidelines issued by this Court in Suo Motu v. State of Kerala ( 2023 (7) KHC 505 )

3. At the time of admission, this Court obtained a report from the learned Magistrate, the relevant portion of which reads thus:-

“Summons was issued in this case on 13.03.2025 and it was directed to serve by affixture. Then summons was issued on 21.04.2025 and 14.05.205 for serving it through affixture. Thereafter on 21.05.2025 summons was issued and report was submitted by Thampanoor police that costs of ensuring the presence of accused far exceed the maximum fine that is prescribed under the statute for the offence concerned. All these summons were directed to serve through affixture.”

4. The impugned order reads thus:-

“This is a case charged by the Sub Inspector of Police, ………………. Police station against the accused/accused persons in crime No…………………… alleging the commission of the offence punishable under sections……………………

2. The case was taken on file as ST No. …………. against accused/accused persons and accused did not appear before the court despite of repeated warrant. The warrant to accused/accused persons returned as unexecuted stating that despite of best efforts in locating the accused, it is not possible to secure his presence before the court.

3. I have perused the report and satisfied that sufficient steps have been taken by the prosecution to procure the presence of the accused. The prosecution did not secure the presence of the accused despite of that efforts. This court is of the view that costs of ensuring the presence of such accused far exceed the maximum fine that is prescribed under the statue for the offence concerned. Hence, this court is of the opinion that further proceedings in the matter will not serve any purpose. Therefore, further proceedings stopped U/s. 258 Cr.P.C and thus the accused is released.

The release shall have the effect of discharge.

Pronounced in open court on this, the 26/5/25 day of ………… 2025.”

5. It appears from the report of the learned Magistrate that no attempt was made by the Court to serve the summons personally on the accused. In the first instance itself, the learned Magistrate directed service of summons by affixture. Then the same process was repeated and finally the Police submitted a report stating that the costs of ensuring the presence of the accused far exceed the maximum fine prescribed under the Statue for the offences alleged.

6. Chapter VI of the BNSS deals with summons and the mode of service of summons. Section 63 of the BNSS deals with the form of summons. Sections 64 to 71 cover the mode of service of summons. As per Section 64, every summons