Kerala High Court

Shameer E vs State Of Kerala on 28 October, 2025

Author: C.S.Dias

Bench: C.S.Dias

                                                     2025:KER:80685
CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

                                  1


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                             PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS

  TUESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1947

                     CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

        AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED IN MC NO.483 OF 2025 OF

SUB DVL.MAGISTRATE, ALAPPUZHA

PETITIONER/ COUNTER PETITIONER:

            SHAMEER E
            AGED 35 YEARS
            S/O IBRAHIM MUKIL PARAMBU HOUSE, MULLATHU VALAPPU
            WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688012


            BY ADVS.
            SRI.V.VINAY
            SHRI.NISSAM NAZZAR




RESPONDENTS/STATE & COMPLAINANT:

    1       STATE OF KERALA
            REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
            KERALA, ERNAKULAM, PIN - 682031

    2       STATION HOUSE OFFICER
            ALLAPPUZHA SOUTH POLICE STATION, COIRFED LANE, SEA
            VIEW WARD, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688001

    3       SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
            ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 688013

            PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. SANAL P RAJ
                                                  2025:KER:80685
CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

                               2



     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
28.10.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                                    2025:KER:80685
CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

                                 3




                           ORDER

Dated this the 28th day of October, 2025

The petitioner is the counter petitioner in

M.C.No.483/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub

Divisional Magistrate, Alappuzha.

2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-1

preliminary order calling upon him to show cause why he

should not be ordered to execute a bond for Rs.75,000/-

with two solvent sureties for the like amount to keep peace

for a period of one year as contemplated under Section

126 read with Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in short).

3. The petitioner contends that Annexure-I order is

unsustainable in law because the Sub Divisional

Magistrate has not set forth the substance of the

information in the said order, which is mandatory under

Section 126 read with Section 130 of the BNSS, and the 2025:KER:80685 CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

law laid down by this Court in Moidu vs. State of Kerala

(1982 KHC 139). Therefore, Annexure-I order may be

quashed.

4. Heard; Sri.V.Vinay, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner and Sri.Sanal P.Raj, the learned Public

Prosecutor.

5. 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 tranquillity 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.

2025:KER:80685 CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

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".

6. The above provisions explicitly postulates that

the Executive Magistrate, on receiving information that

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.

7. It is the petitioner's case that, the Sub Divisional

Magistrate has passed Annexure-I preliminary order 2025:KER:80685 CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

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.

8. 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

imminent threat to peace, is insufficient to justify an order

under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C.

9. 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.

10. 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 2025:KER:80685 CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

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 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 23rd December 2014".

In light of the principles laid down in the afore-

cited decisions and the fact that substance of information

is conspicuously absent in Annexure-I preliminary order, I

am satisfied that the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed. Accordingly

Annexure-I preliminary 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/-

C.S.DIAS, JUDGE

rmm28/10/2025 2025:KER:80685 CRL.MC NO. 9669 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES