S.258 Cr.P.C. Power Not for Cases of Threats to CM; Such Acts Against Democracy Must Be Handled with an Iron Hand: Kerala High Court - 2025-07-03

No Discretionary Relief for Threatening CM, Accused Must Face Trial: Kerala High Court

Kochi , Kerala – The Kerala High Court has delivered a stern message against the trend of threatening constitutional authorities, ruling that individuals accused of such acts must face trial and are not entitled to discretionary relief. Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan dismissed a revision petition filed by a bank employee who sent a death threat to the Chief Minister, holding that such actions are not only against an individual but "against democracy" and must be "handled with the Iron hand of the law."

Case Background

The case originates from an incident on May 2, 2021, the day the Kerala State Legislative Assembly election results were declared. Abjijith M. , the petitioner, allegedly sent two SMS messages from his mobile to the Additional Private Secretary of Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan , stating, "I will kill Pinarayi Vijayan ."

Following a complaint, the Ernakulam Town South Police registered an FIR against Abjijith for offences under Sections 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot) and 506(i) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 120(o) of the Kerala Police Act (causing a nuisance and violation of public order). After the investigation, a final report was filed.

The petitioner approached the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Ernakulam, seeking to stop the proceedings under Section 258 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). The magistrate dismissed this plea, prompting the petitioner to file the current revision petition before the High Court.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the allegations, even if true, did not constitute the offences charged, particularly the cognizable offence under Section 153 IPC. It was contended that the FIR was registered without jurisdiction, both legally (as it was based on a non-cognizable offence without a magistrate's order) and territorially (as the message was received in Thiruvananthapuram, not Ernakulam).

The Senior Public Prosecutor, Smt. Seetha S., countered that this was a serious case involving a death threat against the head of the state government by an educated bank employee. She argued that the petitioner's actions wasted valuable police resources and that quashing the proceedings would send the wrong message to society.

Court's Analysis and Ruling

Justice Kunhikrishnan , in his order, expressed deep concern over the "trend to send threatening messages and use derogatory statements against constitutional authorities... to get publicity." The court firmly stated that individuals who engage in such acts and then seek to escape prosecution on technical grounds should not be shown leniency.

The judgment emphasized that the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which allows a magistrate to stop proceedings in a summons case, is an extraordinary power to be used only in "exceptional or unusual circumstances." It is not a substitute for a discharge application. The court held:

"Such threatening messages are not only against an individual, but it is against democracy and ultimately against the people who participated in a democratic process. Such action should be handled with the Iron hand of the law, with a message to society."

The court distinguished the present case from precedents cited by the petitioner, noting the gravity of a direct death threat to a Chief Minister. The judge observed that the petitioner, being an educated person, should have known the severe consequences of his actions, which unnecessarily troubled the Chief Minister's office and the state police force.

"If this Court, even without a trial, declare that no offence is made out, it will give a wrong message to society. I am of the considered opinion that, in such cases, the accused should face trial and raise all the contentions before the trial court at the appropriate stage."

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the criminal revision petition, upholding the magistrate's decision to not stop the proceedings. The court affirmed that the petitioner is not entitled to any discretionary relief and must face trial. All contentions raised by the petitioner were left open to be decided by the trial court at the appropriate stage, without being influenced by the High Court's observations.