Suo Motu Proceedings vs State Of Kerala
2024 Latest Caselaw 15480 Ker

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 15480 Ker
Judgement Date : 5 June, 2024

Kerala High Court

Suo 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. 57 OF 2017
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.11.2016 IN ST NO.3220 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 18.09.17.
RESPONDENTS:

     1        STATE OF KERALA,
              REPRESENTED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
              KOTTIYAM, CR.561/2013

     2        CHANDRA BABU, S/o PURUSHOTHAMAN,
              AMBILI BHAVAN, NEAR KADAKKAL SEED FARM,
              KADACKAL MURI, KADACKAL VILLAGE.

              BY SR. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. C.N.PRABHAKARAN


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.57 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.