Kerala High Court Clarifies Magistrate's Power to Stop Proceedings Under Section 258 Cr.P.C.

Ernakulam: The Kerala High Court has recently reaffirmed the conditions under which a Magistrate can exercise the power under Section 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) to stop proceedings in certain summons cases. The Court, in an order related to WP(Crl.) 463/2025 (Sainaba N.V. vs State of Kerala) and a batch of Criminal Revision Cases from 2018, held that such stoppage is permissible if the accused cannot be procured despite reasonable efforts, or if the cost of ensuring their appearance would exceed the maximum fine imposable for the alleged offence.

Background: Suo Motu Review of Acquittals

The High Court had initiated suo motu proceedings concerning a series of acquittals granted under Section 258 Cr.P.C. The primary concern was whether these orders of acquittal were passed without sufficient grounds or without adhering to the mandatory requirements of the said section. This review encompassed numerous Criminal Revision Cases (Crl.RC Nos. 1210/2018, 1212/2018, and others).

Understanding Section 258 Cr.P.C.

Section 258 Cr.P.C. provides a mechanism for Magistrates to stop proceedings in summons cases instituted otherwise than upon a complaint. The section, as extracted by the Court, states:

> “258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases.—In any summons-case instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect of discharge.”

The Court noted that this provision allows a Magistrate to stop further proceedings and either release the accused (which acts as a discharge) or, if principal witnesses' evidence has been recorded, pronounce an acquittal.

Conditions for Invoking Section 258 Cr.P.C.

The High Court emphasized that the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. can be exercised if: 1. The accused could not be procured within a reasonable time. 2. The cost of procuring the accused would exceed the maximum fine that can be imposed for the offence alleged.

The Court relied on a precedent set by a Division Bench in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC OnLine 821) . The relevant portion of the 2023 judgment was cited:

> “ii. In the case of those summons-cases instituted otherwise than upon a complaint, which do not qualify as petty offences, where the prosecution files a report stating unambiguously that despite its best efforts at locating the accused, it has not been successful in securing the presence of the accused before the Magistrate, the Magistrate concerned shall scrutinise the report submitted by the prosecution to satisfy himself/herself of the fact that reasonably sufficient steps have been taken by the prosecution to ensure the presence of the accused and that the costs of ensuring the appearance of such accused far exceed the maximum fine that is prescribed under the Statute for the offence concerned. In the event of the Magistrate being satisfied of both of the aspects mentioned above, then it would be permissible for the Magistrate to record an order of stoppage of proceedings in accordance with Section 258 of the Cr.P.C.”

High Court's Decision on the Revisions

Applying this settled legal position, the High Court found that the Magistrates in the cases under review had acted within their jurisdiction. The Court stated:

> "Being the legal position settled as above, it is within the jurisdiction of the trial court/concerned Magistrate to exercise the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C. on its satisfaction that the presence of the accused could not be procured in spite of attempt or that the cost of ensuring/procuring the accused would exceed the maximum fine that may be imposed for the offence."

Concluding that the challenged orders of stoppage deserved no interference, the Court held:

> "These cases would squarely fall under the purview of Section 258 Cr.P.C.. Hence, stoppage of proceedings by the learned Magistrate deserves no interference."

Consequently, the revisions were dismissed and closed.

Implications of the Ruling

This judgment reinforces the discretionary powers of Magistrates under Section 258 Cr.P.C., providing crucial guidance on its application. It underscores the importance of judicial efficiency by allowing the termination of proceedings where pursuing an accused becomes practically unviable due to non-availability or disproportionate costs, especially in summons cases not initiated by private complaints. The ruling also clarifies the due diligence expected from the prosecution and the satisfaction required by the Magistrate before such an order can be passed.