Kerala High Court
Krishnadas vs State Of Kerala on 4 November, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:83115
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 9847 OF 2025
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 15.10.2025 IN MC NO.883 OF
2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KRISHNADAS
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O. UNNIKRISHNAN, CHOLAKKATT (H),
PARADHOOR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT., PIN - 679312
BY ADVS.
SRI.M.R.SASITH
SMT.R.K.CHIRUTHA
SMT.ANJANA SURESH.E
SMT.REETHU JACOB
SMT.LIDHIYA GEORGE
SMT.HASNA JABIL
SMT.ANJITHA S.
RESPONDENTS/STATE:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031
2 SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
REVENUE ZONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR,
KB JACOB RD, NEAR FORT KOCHI,
FORT KOCHI, ERNAKULAM KERALA, PIN - 682001
3 INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KANNAMALY POLICE STATION KANNAMALI PO,
KOCHI, KERALA, PIN - 682008
OTHER PRESENT:
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR- SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
04.11.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 9847 OF 2025 2
2025:KER:83115
Dated this the 4th day of November, 2025
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.883/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Fort Kochi.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-
A1 order passed under Section 130 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in short),
directing him to attend the office of the Magistrate and
show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a
cash bond of Rs. 1/- lakh with two solvent sureties for the
like sum for keeping peace for A period of one year
under Section 126 of the BNSS. The petitioner has not
been served with any notice or preliminary order under
section 126 of the BNSS or summons to appear before
the Sub Divisional Magistrate. Annexure A1 order is
illegal and arbitrary and against the law laid down by
this Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC
139). Therefore, Annexure-A1 order may be quashed.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
2025:KER:83115
petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.
4. In the above context it is necessary to refer to
Sections 126 and 130 of the BNSS, which corresponds to
the erstwhile Sections 107 and 111 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure,which reads as follows:
126. (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information
that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or
disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that
may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the
public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding, he may, in the manner hereinafter
provided, require such person to show cause why he should
not be ordered to execute a bond or bail bond for keeping
the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the
Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceedings under this section may be taken before any
Executive Magistrate when either the place where the
breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within
his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a
person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or
disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as
aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
130. When a Magistrate acting under section 126, section
127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary to
require any person to show cause under such section, he
shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of
the information received, the amount of the bond to be
executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the
number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and
fitness of sureties".
5. The above provisions explicitly postulates that
the Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that
2025:KER:83115
any person is likely to commit a breach of peace, disturb
the public tranquility or does any wrongful act, and that
there are sufficient grounds to proceed against him, the
Executive Magistrate may, in the manner provided under
Chapter IX of the BNSS, require such person to show
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond or
bail bond for his good behavior for such period, not
exceeding one year provided an order in writing is
passed, setting forth the substance of information
received, the amount of bond to be executed, the term
for which it is to be in force and the number of sureties.
6. It is the petitioner's case that, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate has passed Annexure-A1
preliminary order without furnishing the substance of
information. Instead, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has
merely stated that the petitioner is involved in a crime
registered by the Police.
7. In Jayanth K. C. v. State of Kerala (2025
KHC 1591), this Court has held that mere registration of
a crime and an anticipation of possible violence, without
2025:KER:83115
imminent threat to peace, is insufficient to justify an
order under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Similarly in Girish P. and others v. State of
Kerala and another (2009 (4) KHC 929), this Court has
held that unless the substance of information is stated in
an order passed under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C, the
order passed under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C., is bad in
law.
9. A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in
Farhan Nasir Khan and others v. State of
Maharashtra and others (2020 KHC 3064) has
succinctly held as follows:
"9.To put it simply, the requirement of law is that the
Magistrate has to form an opinion in writing
contemplated by S.111 of the Cr.P.C. and thereafter
proceed to issue a show cause notice as contemplated
by S.107 and along with the show cause notice annex
the opinion. But, in a given case, it may happen that
the language in which the order/opinion contemplated
under S.111 is not comprehensible to the noticee, then
the notice may integrate the order/opinion and convey
to the noticee in the language which the noticee
comprehends.
10. The purpose of the law is that the noticee is to be
made known the factual matrix comprising either the
complaint or the information received by the
Magistrate and the reasons for the opinion formed by
the Magistrate.
10 (a). Since we find no contra opinion in Suleman
Adam's case (supra) vis-a-vis the opinion taken by the
2025:KER:83115
learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this
Court in the 8 decisions referred to in paragraph 3 of
the order dated 23rd December, 2014, we return the
reference unanswered for the reason the law is well
settled and captured in the eight decisions noted in
paragraph 3 of the order of reference dated 23 rd
December 2014".
10. In light of the principles laid down in the
afore-cited decisions and the fact that the petitioner was
not served with the preliminary order under Section 126
of the BNSS and the substance of information is
conspicuously absent in Annexure A1 order, I am
satisfied that the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed.
Accordingly Annexure A1 order is set aside. The
Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to reconsider the
matter as per the mandate under Sections 126 and 130
of the BNSS and in accordance with law.
Sd/-
mtk/ 04.11.25 C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
2025:KER:83115
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE PRELIMINARY ORDER DATED
15.10.2025 IN M.C. NO: 883/2025 OF THE
SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, FORT KOCHI
Annexure A2(a) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
186/2025 OF KANNAMALY POLICE STATION
DATED 23.05.2025
Annexure A2(b) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
191/2025 OF KANNAMALY POLICE STATION
DATED 25.05.2025
Annexure A2(c) THE TRUE COPIES OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.
328/2025 OF PANANGAD POLICE STATION DATED
26.08.2024
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF INTERIM ORDER IN CRL MC NO
8094/2025 DATED 16.09.2025
Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER IN CRL MC 9555/2025
DATED 27.10.2025
