[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Karthika Pradeep vs State Of Kerala on 9 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 1 2026:KER:1378
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 19TH POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026
CRIME NO.RPT/708/TD/CE/2025 OF Ernakulam Central Police Station,
Ernakulam
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 01.09.2025 IN MC NO.461
OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL COURT,FORT COCHIN
PETITIONER/ACCUSED:
KARTHIKA PRADEEP
AGED 25 YEARS
D/O PRADEEP CT, LEKSHMI NILAYAM, KANNOMCODE, ADOOR,
ADUR (KLA), ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA, KERALA, PIN -
691523
BY ADVS.
SMT.IPSITA OJAL
SHRI.MANAS P HAMEED
SMT.LAYA SIMON
SHRI.ANIL KUMAR K.P.
SMT.MARIYAMMA A.K.
RESPONDENT/STATE AND COMPLAINANT :
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682031
2 THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE
REVENUE ZONAL OFFICE, FIRST FLOOR, KB JACOB RD, FORT
KOCHI, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, KERALA, PIN - 682001
3 STATION HOUSE OFFICER
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 2 2026:KER:1378
CENTRAL POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM, KERALA, PIN -
682018
PP SRI M P PRASANTH
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 3 2026:KER:1378
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.461/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Fort Cochin.
2. The petitioner has been served with Annexure-I
order calling upon her to attend the Court and to execute a
cash bond for Rs.1,00,000/- with two solvent sureties for
the like amount for keeping peace for a period of one year
as contemplated under Section 129 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in short). 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 law laid down by this Court in
Moidu vs. State of Kerala (1982 KHC 139). Therefore,
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 4 2026:KER:1378
Annexure-I order may be quashed.
3. Heard; Smt.Ipsita Ojal, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner and Sri.M.P. Prasanth, 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 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.
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
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 5 2026:KER:1378
fitness of sureties".
5. 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, do any wrongful act and that there are
sufficient grounds to proceed against him 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 as the Executive Magistrate
may think fit, provided the Executive Magistrate passes an
order in writing, setting forth the substance of information
received, the amount of bond to be executed, the terms 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-I order under Section 130
of the BNSS without furnishing the substance of
information. Instead, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has
merely stated that the petitioner is involved in crimes
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 6 2026:KER:1378
registered by the Police.
7. A Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Madhu Limaye and Another v. Sub Divisional
Magistrate, Monghyr and Others (1970 KHC 635) has
elaborately interpreted Section 107 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, in the following manner:
"33. The gist of S.107 may now be given. It enables certain
specified classes of Magistrates to make an order calling
upon a person to show - cause why he should not be
ordered to execute a bond, with or without sureties for
keeping the peace for such period not exceeding one year
as the Magistrate thinks fit to fix. The condition of taking
action is that the Magistrate is informed and he is of
opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding that a
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. The Magistrate can proceed if the
person is within his jurisdiction or the place of the
apprehended breach of the peace or disturbance is within
the local limits of his jurisdiction. The Section goes on to
empower even a Magistrate not empowered to take action,
to record his reason for acting, and then to order the arrest
of the, person (if not already in custody or before the
Court) with a view to sending him before a Magistrate
empowered to deal with the case, together with a copy of
his reason. The Magistrate before whom such a person is
sent may in his discretion detain such person in custody
pending further action by him.
34. The Section is aimed at persons, who cause a
reasonable apprehension of conduct likely to lead to a
breach of the peace or disturbance of the public
tranquility. This is an instance of preventive justice which
the Courts are intended to administer. This provision like
the preceding one is in aid of orderly society and seeks to
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 7 2026:KER:1378
nip in the bud conduct subversive of the peace and public
tranquility. For this purpose Magistrate are invested with
large judicial discretionary powers for the preservation of
public peace and order. Therefore the jurisdiction for such
provisions is claimed by the State to be in the function of
the State which embraces not only the punishment of
offenders but, as far as possible, the prevention of offences.
35. Both the Sections are counter - parts of the same
policy, the first applying when by reason of the conviction
of a person, his past conduct leads to an apprehension for
the further and the second applying where the Magistrate,
on information, is of the opinion that unless prevented from
so acting, a person is likely to act to the detriment of the
public peace and public tranquility. The argument is that
these Sections (more particularly S.107) are destructive of
freedom of the individual guaranteed by Art.19(1)(a), (b),
(c) and (d) and are not saved by the restrictions
contemplated by Clauses (2) to (5) of the Article. It is also
contended that there are no proper procedural safeguards
in the Sections that follow. Before we deal with these
contentions it is necessary to glance briefly at S.112-119 of
Division B and S.120-126A of Division C.
36. We have seen the provision of S.107. That Section says
that action is to be taken 'in the manner hereinafter
provided' and this clearly indicates that it is not open to a
Magistrate in such a case to depart from the procedure to
any substantial extent. This is very salutary because the
liberty of the person is involved and the law is rightly
solicitous, that this liberty should only be curtailed
according to its own procedure and not recording to the
whim of the Magistrate concerned. It behaves us,
therefore, to emphasis the safeguards built into the
procedure because from them will arise the consideration
of the reasonableness of the restrictions in the interest of
public order or in the interest of the general public.
37. The procedure beings with S.112. It requires that the
Magistrate acting under S.107 shall make an order in
writing, setting forth the substance of the information
received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is
to be in force and the number, character and class of
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 8 2026:KER:1378
sureties (if any) required. Since the person to be
proceeded against has to show - cause, it is but
natural that he must know the grounds for
apprehending a breach of the peace of disturbance of
the public tranquility at his hands. Although the
Section speaks of the 'substance of the information' it does
not mean the order should not be full. It may not repeat the
information bodily but it must give propose notice of what
has moved the Magistrate to take the action. This order is
the foundation of the jurisdiction and the word 'substance'
means the essence of the most important parts of the
information."
(emphasis given)
8. Likewise, 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 learned
Single Judge or by the Division Bench of this Court in the 8
decisions referred to in paragraph 3 of the order dated 23 rd
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
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 9 2026:KER:1378
dated 23rd December 2014".
9. This Court in Jayanth K. C. v. State of Kerala
(2025 KHC 1591) 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. 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 proceeding under Section 107 of the
Cr.P.C., the order is bad in law.
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 order, I am satisfied
that the Crl.M.C. is to be allowed by quashing Annexure-I
order and directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate to
reconsider the matter as per the mandate under Section 130
of the BNSS and the principles referred to in the aforecited
decisions. Accordingly, Annexure-I order is quashed and the
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 10 2026:KER:1378
Sub Divisional Magistrate is directed to reconsider the
matter, in accordance with law.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.09.01.26.
CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026 11 2026:KER:1378
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 187 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure-1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 1-9-2025
ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT ALONG WITH
TYPED COPY
Annexure-II THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 355/ 2025
DATED 15-03-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-III THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 609/ 2025
DATED 02-05-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL
POLICE STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-IV TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 610/ 2025 DATED
02-05-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-V TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 611/ 2025 DATED
02-05-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-VI TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 612/ 2025 DATED
02-05-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-VII TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 613/ 2025 DATED
02-05-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-VIII TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO. 617/ 2025 DATED
04-05-2025 REGISTERED AT THE CENTRAL POLICE
STATION, ERNAKULAM
Annexure-IX THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN MOIDU V.
STATE OF KERALA (MANU/KE/0167/1982) DATED
31-03-1982
Annexure-X THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN BASHEER
MOZZHIYAAN VS STATE OF KERALA (CRL. M.C
8229 OF 2025) DATED 22-10-2025
Annexure-XI THE TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN JAYANTH
K.C. V. STATE OF KERALA, (CRL M.C. 8587 OF
2024), DATED 7-02-2025
