Kerala High Court
Sou Motu Proceedings vs State Of Kerala on 5 June, 2024
Author: P.Somarajan
Bench: P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 15TH JYAISHTA, 1946
CRL.RC NO. 12 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13/6/16 IN ST NO.268 OF 2013 OF JUDICIAL
MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS -II, KOLLAM
PETITIONER
SUO MOTU PROCEEDINGS AS PER THE RESOLUTION
OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE IN ITS MEETING HELD ON 18/09/2017
RESPONDENTS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OFPOLICE, KOTTIYAM.
CR.2171/2012
2 VIPIN
S/O. BABY, VIPIN BHAVAN,TOPPIL MUKKIL, ARINALLOOR
CHERRY,THEVALAKKARA VILLAGE.
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI.SANGEETHARAJ N.R.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION CASE HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
05.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.R.C.No.12 of 2017 2
ORDER
Suo motu proceedings were initiated against the order
of acquittal on the ground that the jurisdiction under
Section 258 Cr.P.C. was exercised without any sufficient
ground and without the compliance of requirement as
mandated.
2. Section 258 Cr.P.C. is extracted below for
reference:
"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."
3. In a summons case, it is permissible for the
Magistrate, for the reason to be recorded, to stop further
proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment
and to release the accused which will have the effect of a
discharge or in the case of recording of statement of
principal witness to pronounce a judgment of acquittal, if
it is found that the accused could not be procured within a
reasonable time or cost of procuring the accused would
exceed the maximum fine amount that can be imposed for the
offence alleged against.
4. A Division Bench of this Court had the occasion to
consider the application of Section 258 Cr.P.C. in a
summons case in Suo motu v. State of Kerala and Another
(2023 KHC OnLine 821). The relevant portion of the judgment
is extracted below for reference:
"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."
5. 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.
This case would squarely fall under the purview of
Section 258 Cr.P.C.. Hence, stoppage of proceedings by the
learned Magistrate deserves no interference. The revision
fails and is closed.
Sd/-
P.SOMARAJAN
JUDGE
sv
