[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 2 February, 2026
CRL.MC NO.6178/2021 1
2026:KER:8479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SYAM KUMAR V.M.
MONDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2026 / 13TH MAGHA, 1947
CRL.M.C.NO.6178 OF 2021
ARISING OUT OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN M.C.NO.99/2021 ON
THE FILES OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE COURT,
MUVATTUPUZHA
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
SANTHOSH KUMAR
AGED 47 YEARS
S/O.DAMODHARAN, PULICKAL HOUSE, VELUR KARA,
KUNNATHUNADU TALUK, PUTHANKURISH VILLAGE
BY ADVS.
SRI.RAFEEK. V.K.
SRI.SAIJO HASSAN
SRI.BENOJ C AUGUSTIN
SRI.U.M.HASSAN
SMT.P.PARVATHY
SRI.T.K.KUNJUMON
RESPONDENT/STATE:
1 SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
MUVATTUPUZHA, GROUND FLOOR, REVENUE DIVISIONAL
OFFICE BUILDING, PATTIMATTOM-MUVATTUPUZHA ROAD,
MUVATTUPUZHA, KERALA 686 673
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
ERNAKULAM KOCHI 682 031
BY ADV.SRI.SANAL P.RAJ, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 02.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE
FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO.6178/2021 2
2026:KER:8479
ORDER
Dated this the 02nd day of February, 2026
This Criminal Miscellaneous Case is filed by the petitioner
challenging Annexure A1 preliminary order in M.C.No.99 of 2021
dated 09.11.2021 issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Muvattupuzha, under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Public Prosecutor.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had, in a rather mechanical
exercise of jurisdiction, issued a preliminary order under Section 111
of Cr.P.C. against the petitioner. There has been no proper
application of mind and the mandatory requirements to be complied
with before proceeding to issue a preliminary order under Section
111 have not been met. The legal stipulation that the substance of
information, based on which the proceedings are initiated, should be
explained in an order issued under Section 111 Cr.P.C. has not
been met while issuing Annexure A1 order. Reliance is placed on
the dictum laid down in Madhu Limaye v. Sub Divisional
2026:KER:8479
Magistrate Monghyr and others [1970 KHC 635], Moidu v. State
of Kerala [1982 KLT 578 (F.B.)], Girish P. and others v. State of
Kerala and another [2009 (4) KHC 929], Santhosh M.V. and
others v. State of Kerala and others [2014 KHC 522]; Sharmina
A. v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Perinthalmanna [2025 (3) KHC
645]; Henry Vijayakumar v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KLT 495]
and Jayanth K.C. v. State of Kerala [2025 KHC OnLine 1591] and
it is submitted that Annexure A1 order to the extent the substance of
information therein does not meet the mandates laid down in the
said precedents.
4. The learned Public Prosecutor opposed the contentions
and submitted that the impugned order is validly rendered and does
not merit any interference. It is submitted that the proceedings have
been initiated against the accused after taking due note of the
serious charges that had already been levelled against him. It is
prayed that the Crl.M.C. may be dismissed.
5. It is trite that whenever a Magistrate intends to proceed
action under Section 107, Section 108, Section 109 or Section 110
and deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under
such Section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the
2026:KER:8479
substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be
executed, the terms for which it is to be enforced, and the number,
character and class of sureties, if any, required. Any order issued
without furnishing such details is non est. The term 'substance of the
information' presupposes a clear and cogent summary of the
information that was received by the Magistrate, which led him to the
conclusion that a breach of the peace is likely at the behest of the
person implicated. It should have reference to the essential and
specific allegations that form the very basis on which the Magistrate
takes action against the individual. What is thus intended is that the
person should be able to prepare his defence before his liberty is
curtailed [See Ismail Sahib v. State of Kerala [2023 (6) KHC 103].
6. In the case at hand, I note that Annexure A1 preliminary
order issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. does not disclose any
'substance of the information'. A perusal of Annexure A1 order
reveals that all that has been stated as the substance of the dispute
is the enumeration of the charges as against the petitioner.
Annexure A1 order does not constitute 'substance of the information'
as envisaged in the provision. They are, at most, some factual
information and events anticipated/apprehended without any
2026:KER:8479
substantiation. Thus, the course seen adopted by the Sub Divisional
Magistrate while issuing Annexure A1 in the Crl.M.C. is contrary to
what is envisaged under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C.
7. Proceedings under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. are
initiated for executing a bond to avoid breach of public tranquillity for
a period of one year. Now, more than one year has elapsed after
issuance of the preliminary order, which is dated 09.11.2021. Thus,
nothing effectively survives in the matter.
This Criminal M.C. is allowed. Annexure A1 preliminary
order issued under Section 111 by the Sub Divisional Magistrate is
hereby quashed. It is clarified that the quashing of Annexure A1
order shall not be a bar for the Sub Divisional Magistrate, if so
necessitated by circumstances, to initiate action under Section 107
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, or its equivalent provision, in
accordance with law.
Sd/-
SYAM KUMAR V.M.
JUDGE
csl
2026:KER:8479
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 6178 OF 2021
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 9-11-2021
PASSED BY THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
UNDER SECTION 111 CR.P.C
Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF SUMMONS DATED 9-11-2021 ISSUED
BY THE SUB-DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE UNDER
SECTION 111 CR.P.C
Annexure A3 TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR OF
AMBALAMEDU POLICE STATION UNDER SECTION 107
CR.P.C
