[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Surendrakumar. P.K vs Sub Inspector Of Police on 12 January, 2026
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2026:KER:1993
CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
MONDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 22ND POUSHA, 1947
CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026
CRIME NO.792/2024 OF Kakkur Police Station, Kozhikode
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2025 IN MC NO.1145
OF 2025 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE,KOZHIKODE
PETITIONER/RESPONDENT :
SURENDRAKUMAR. P.K
AGED 59 YEARS
S/O GOPALAN P.K, PUTHUKOTHUMKANDI HOUSE,
PUNNASSERY.P.O, KAKKUR VILAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK,NOW
RESIDING AT PUTHANKULAM NANDANAM HOUSE, CHELANNUR
VILLAGE, KOZHIKODE TALUK, CHELANNUR.P.O, KOZHIKODE
DISTRICT, PIN - 673616
BY ADVS.
SMT.LISY T.SKARIA
SMT.SHYNI PELEXY
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
KAKKUR POLICE STATION, KAKKUR. P.O, KAKKUR VILLAGE,
KOZHIKODE TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT, PIN - 673585
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM,KOCHI, PIN - 682031
SR PP SMT SEETHA S
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
12.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:1993
CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026 2
C.S.DIAS, J.
---------------------------------------
CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026
-----------------------------------------
Dated this the 12th day of January, 2026
ORDER
The petitioner is the counter petitioner in
M.C.No.1145/2025 pending before the Court of the Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Kozhikode.
2. The petitioner stated that he has been served
with Annexure-A1 order passed under Section 130 of the
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ('BNSS', in
short), directing him to appear before the Court and show
cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond for
Rs.50,000/- with two solvent sureties for the like amount to
keep peace for a period of one year as contemplated under
Section 130 of the BNSS.
3. The petitioner contends that, Annexure-A1 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
2026:KER:1993
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, Annexure-A1 order may be
quashed.
4. Heard; Sri. Lisy T. Skaria, the learned Counsel
for the petitioner and Smt. Sreeja V., 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.
2026:KER:1993
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-A1 order without
2026:KER:1993
furnishing the substance of information. Instead, the Sub
Divisional Magistrate has merely stated that the petitioner
is involved in crimes 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
2026:KER:1993
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-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/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
SCB.12.01.26.
2026:KER:1993
APPENDIX OF CRL.MC NO. 249 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE TRUE COPY OF M.C.NO: 1145/ 2025
PENDING BEFORE THE SUB DIVISIONAL
MAGISTRATE, KOZHIKODE DATED 31.12.2025
Annexure A2 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR NO : 792/2024 OF THE
KAKKUR POLICE STATION DATED 18.12.2024
Annexure A3 THE TRUE COPY OF FIR NO : 793/2024 OF THE
KAKKUR POLICE STATION DATED 19.12.2024
Annexure A4 THE TRUE COPY OF OS.NO : 144/2025 OF THE
MUNSIF COURT, KOZHIKKODE DATED 02.04.2025
Annexure A5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO: 668/2025 OF
THE KAKKUR POLICE STATION DATED 19.09.2025
Annexure A6 THE TRUE COPY OF THE FIR NO: 668/2025 OF
THE KAKKUR POLICE STATION DATED 19.09.2025
Annexure A7 THE TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER'S WIFE BY THE 1 ST RESPONDENT
DATED 03.09.2025
