The petitioner, Andamukkam Salafi Masjid Kollam (mosque established in 2008 and registered under the Kerala State Wakf Board) seeks police protection to carry out maintenance work with permission granted by the Wakf Board (Exts. P5–P7). In December 2024 and January 2025, the 6th respondent (former committee member) along with respondents 7–11 obstructed the maintenance work and allegedly manhandled workers; the petitioner filed complaints (Exts. P11, P12) but claims no action was taken. Respondents 6–11 counter that the mosque was funded by public contributions, the petitioner’s representative is not the mutawalli, and a civil dispute is pending before the Wakf Board (O.P. No. 52/2025). The 4th respondent issued Ext. P10, ordering status-quo to be maintained. The petition argues that police protection is necessary to complete maintenance without disrupting public order, while the respondents contend that granting protection would bypass civil adjudication and provoke law-and-order issues given ongoing civil disputes. The court discusses the jurisdictional limits on police protection in the context of disputed civil rights, citing P.R. Murlidharan and the recent Padmanabhan N decision, and ultimately declines to grant relief under Article 226, directing the 5th respondent to maintain law and order without interfering in civil disputes. The petition is disposed accordingly.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1652 OF 2024 Muhammed Nafi, the sole petitioner, seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC in Crime No. 111/2024 of Melattur Police Station, Malappuram, registered against him and two others for offences under Sections 341, 323, 294(b), 506(i) and 308 read with Section 34 IPC. Arrested on 30 January 2024, the petitioner contends false implication and argues that Annexure I FIR shows that the offence under Section 308 IPC is not attracted, with the 308 charge allegedly introduced only to deny bail. He has been in judicial custody since 30.01.2024, exceeding 30 days, and the investigation is practically complete with recovery effected; hence further detention is unnecessary. The prosecution submits that the petitioner has criminal antecedents and is involved in about 10 similar cases; the investigation is ongoing and releasing him may lead to recidivism, supported by the Accident Register-cum-Wound Certificate of the complainant. The court, after considering the evidence, including medical records showing minor injuries, prima facie finds that Section 308 IPC may not be attracted. Relying on Supreme Court principles from Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, Dataram Singh v. State of UP, State of Kerala v. Raneef, and Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, the judge emphasizes presumption of innocence, the bail rule, and the rights under Article 21. Consequently, the bail application is allowed on bond of Rs.50,000 with two solvent sureties, and conditions including attendance, no inducement, non-commitment of offences, passport surrender, and potential bail modification procedures.
This is a bail application under Section 438 CrPC filed by four petitioners (accused 2–5) in Crime No. 224/2023 of the Crime Branch, Ernakulam. The first accused company allegedly obtained a loan of Rs. 20 crore on 26.09.2014 by furnishing forged stock statements and later diverted stock without the bank’s knowledge, resulting in a substantial loss of around Rs. 32.52 crore to the second respondent. The petitioners, who are directors/guarantors of the company, contend they acted in good faith and were diligent in repayment until the Covid-19 pandemic hit, after which circumstances prevented timely repayment. Investigations initially suggested the matter was civil, evidenced by Annexure A2 after Annexure A1 FIR; later, a separate FIR Annexure A3 was registered, leading to paralysis in early investigative proceedings. The first accused company has since been liquidated by NCLT order, and the second respondent has filed PIRP before the NCLT. The petitioners rely on Th. Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah’s formulation to argue that mere inability to repay does not automatically constitute cheating without mens rea at inception. The prosecution argues custodial interrogation is necessary to complete a full investigation, given alleged fund diversion and stock manipulation. The court ultimately allows pre-arrest bail with conditions, finding no immediate need for custodial interrogation while ensuring ongoing investigation safety.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges a debit freeze on the petitioner’s bank account No. 0836101021528, imposed by the 4th respondent Canara Bank on the basis of a police requisition from the 3rd respondent Cyber Crime Police Station, Thiruchirapalli, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner, Asiya, asserts that the freeze is illegal and arbitrary because the requisition did not specify any amount to be frozen, and the bank has not demonstrated a lawful basis for a blanket freeze affecting the account. The 4th respondent bank maintains it acted on the requisition; however, the requisition did not mention a specific amount. The Court relies on established Kerala jurisprudence (Dr. Sajeer v RBI; Nazeer K.T v Federal Bank Ltd) requiring banks to confine freezes to the amount specified and to obtain timely guidance from police about continuation. It also cites State of Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize timely reporting of seizures to the Magistrate and limiting freezes if information is not provided. The Judge directs that (i) the bank confine the freeze to the amount in the order; (ii) the police inform whether continued freezing is required and for how long; (iii) banks act on such information; (iv) if no information is received, the petitioner may approach again; (v) if seizure is not reported within two months, the bank shall lift the debit freeze. The petition is disposed with protective directions to prevent indefinite deprivation of funds.
The writ petition filed by Allus Cardamom Point challenges the freezing of its bank account (No. 346705010050135) by Union Bank of India following police requisitions. The petitioner contends that the debit freeze is illegal and arbitrary, impairing its ability to operate the account. The bank states that the total disputed amount is Rs. 4,00,000 and that the freeze was in response to police directions. The court cites Dr. Sajeer v. Reserve Bank of India (2024 (1) KLT 826) and Nazeer K.T v. Manager, Federal Bank Ltd (2024 KHC OnLine 768), endorsing a principled approach: freezes should be confined to the amount specified in police orders and banks must promptly inform police authorities about whether further freezing is required and for what period. The decision also references Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as interpreted by later legislation (now Section 106 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), along with Maharashtra v. Tapas D Neogy, Teesta Atul Setalvad v. State of Gujarat, and Shento Varghese v. Julfikar Husen to emphasize timely reporting and avoidance of indefinite freezes. Consequently, the court directs the bank to limit the freeze to the police-ordered amount, directs police to indicate continuation if needed, and lays down a two-month window for compliance under CrPC, with service of judgment to relevant officers.
WA Nos.1498/2022, 1808/2022, 1807/2022 and W.P.(C) Nos.4646/2022, 6955/2023, 19871/2022, 20313/2022, 26745/2022, 32204/2022, 36142/2022 The Kerala High Court, in a batch of writ appeals (WA Nos. 1498/2022, 1808/2022, 1807/2022) and connected Writ Petitions (WP(C) Nos. 4646/2022, 6955/2023, 19871/2022, 20313/2022, 26745/2022, 32204/2022, 36142/2022), addresses challenges to the Staff Selection Commission’s recruitment process for Police/Armed Forces posts under a 2018 notification. The core controversy centers on the interim and final orders that set apart a substantial number of vacancies (243 posts and other unfilled posts) from the pool of notified vacancies, to be considered separately for petitioners in earlier rounds of litigation. The court examines whether applying the interim order and the principle actus curiae neminem gravabit violated fair treatment of merit-listed candidates and whether the SSC could responsibly complete recruitment without undoing completed selections. It reviews precedents (Shankarsan Dash, Haryana v. Marwaha, Neelima Shangla, Manoj Manu, etc.) to balance legal rights with practical constraints. In a detailed, practice-oriented ruling, the bench holds that while a full re-opening of the earlier process would derail concluded selections, there is a need to protect fair consideration. The judgment modifies the earlier directions (para 25.4) and directs the SSC to finalize 73-83 additional candidates within eight weeks from the date of the judgment, with unfilled vacancies carried forward to future cycles, and clarifies seniority and implications for those already appointed.
The petitioner, Lissy Poulose, challenges Ext.P8, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) denying her Form 5 application for removal of land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008. She owns 18 Ares of land in Sy. No. 224/6, Parakkadavu Village, Aluva Taluk, Ernakulam District, which she contends does not qualify as paddy land or wetland as defined in the Act. The RDO rejected removal based on a Kerala State Remote Sensing and Environment Centre (KSREC) report indicating vegetation and that the land was converted after 2011, with waterlogging claimed year-round. The petitioner claims misinterpretation of the KSREC report and a non-application of mind, arguing that the decision ignores the Act’s objectives and binding precedents. Rule 4(d) of the Rules, along with Rule 4(4E) and 4(4F), prescribes the procedure for Form 5 and independent verification, including satellite imagery, and that the RDO must determine the land’s status as on the date of coming into force of the Act. The judgment cites Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, Sudheesh v. RDO, and Mather Nagar Residents Association to emphasize independent assessment, appropriate interpretation of data, and the twin test of paddy cultivation suitability and fallow status. The court sets aside Ext.P8, directs reconsideration based on Ext.P7 KSREC report and the Court’s observations within two months, and disposes of the petition with this direction.
This is a Motor Accident Claims Appeal filed by the claimants in O.P.(M.V.) No.306/2008 challenging the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, dated 24 February 2012, which found the insurance company liable for the death of Joy James arising from a motor accident on 28 January 2008. The High Court of Kerala, in a judgment dated 03 January 2024, re-evaluates the quantum of compensation and addresses both the income of the deceased and the calculation heads of damages. The Tribunal had assessed Rs. 6,18,750 with 8% interest; appellants contend the income of the deceased and the future prospects were undervalued. Relying on Supreme Court principles from Ramachandrappa and Syed Sadiq, the court determines a higher monthly income (Rs. 6,500) and applies a 40% addition for future prospects given the deceased’s 31-year age. Consequently, loss of dependency is recalculated to Rs. 13,10,400; the amount already awarded (Rs. 5,76,000) is increased by Rs. 7,34,400. Funeral expenses and loss of estate are boosted from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 15,000 each, guided by Pranay Sethi’s framework. Loss of consortium is enhanced to Rs. 1,70,000; the court also adjusts the verdict on loss of love and affection. The total additional compensation amounts to Rs. 9,29,400, and the award is modified accordingly, to be deposited by the insurer with interest and costs within three months.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1417 OF 2024 Rahul, the sixth accused in Crime No.124/2024 of Alathur Police Station, Palakkad, seeks pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC in a case arising from an incident on 28 January 2024 at Chithrapuri Bar, Kallepully, where the first accused allegedly assembled with others, fired an air gun at the first informant, and assaulted bar staff. The prosecution alleges a common‑intent conspiracy among accused 1–7, resulting in injuries to the first informant and bar employees and the use of force; offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 148, 323 and 307 read with 149 IPC are invoked. The petitioner argues innocence, with no overt act attributable to him, not even named in the first information report annexed as A1, and contends there is no recoverable material or specific act linking him to the crime; custodial interrogation is unnecessary and pre-arrest bail should be granted. The Public Prosecutor counters that the accused assembled at the scene and acted in pursuance of common intention, justifying custodial interrogation and recovery. The High Court cites Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre and Sibbia to emphasize that anticipatory bail is not to be granted by rigid formula, but by weighing factors such as gravity of the offence, antecedents, flight risk, and potential witness tampering, and Jai Prakash Singh to reiterate the exceptional nature of pre-arrest bail. On the facts, the court finds no exceptional grounds and denies the application, ordering dismissal.
The petitioner, Firoz V.A., challenges Ext.P10, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer (RDO) rejecting his Form 5 application to remove land from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 and the Rules, 2008. He is the owner in possession of about 10.25 acres in Re.Sy.No.97, Block 63, Perumbavoor, via Ext.P2 settlement deed. He contends the land does not fall within the definition of paddy land or wetland under the Act and was wrongly included in the Data Bank; Ext.P9 KSRSEC report shows a stream or water body on the eastern side and nearby structures, yet the land was not assessed as paddy land as of the Act’s date. He filed Form 5 under Rule 4(d) of the Rules, 2008 before the RDO to remove the land. The RDO’s Ext.P10 rejects the application, relying on the Agricultural Officer’s report and LLMC’s recommendation to retain the land in the Data Bank. The petitioner argues Ext.P10 suffers from non‑application of mind and misquotes Ext.P9. The Court emphasizes that the crucial test is whether, on the Act’s date of coming into force, the land was paddy land and whether it is suitable for paddy cultivation. Citing Arthasasthra Ventures (India) LLP v. State of Kerala, Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO, and Aparna Sasi Menon v. RDO, the Court holds that the RDO must independently evaluate status rather than merely follow LLMC. Ext.P10 is set aside and the matter is remanded for reconsideration within two months using Ext.P9 and the Court’s precedents; the petition is disposed of with issues left open.
The High Court of Kerala heard a bail application under Sec. 438 CrPC by the sole accused K. L. Punith in Crime No. 666/2023 of Noolpuzha Police Station, Wayanad, for alleged offences under Section 420 IPC and Section 69D IT Act. The prosecution alleges that the accused, through a Facebook advertisement, promised to deliver five alloy wheels for Rs. 25,000; the de facto complainant paid Rs. 25,000 on 21-08-2023 and 22-08-2023 via PhonePe, but the wheels were not delivered. The District Court’s Sessions Court Kalpetta had previously concluded custodial interrogation was necessary. The petitioner claims innocence and argues that Section 420 IPC is not attracted; he asserts an out-of-court settlement with the complainant and contends there is no subsisting grievance, so custodial interrogation and recovery are unnecessary. The Public Prosecutor contends the investigation is ongoing and custody is required. The Court discusses the principle that anticipatory bail under Sec. 438 CrPC is an extraordinary remedy to be granted only in exceptional circumstances, citing Srikant Upadhyay v. State of Bihar, Jai Prakash Singh v. State of Bihar, and HDFC Bank Ltd. v. J.J. Mannan. After considering the facts and the lack of exceptional grounds, the Court holds there is no basis to grant pre-arrest bail and dismisses the petition.
WP(C) Nos.6683 & 6706 of 2024 These connected writ petitions challenge the Revenue Divisional Officer’s Form-5 order removing lands in Veliyannoor from the Data Bank under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy and Wet Land Act, 2008. The petitioners’ lands lie in Block No.2, Re-survey 201/2 of Veliyannoor and, per Ext. P2 KSREC report, appear not to be paddy land but were categorized as mixed/plantation in 2011. The petitioners contend the Form-5 order was passed mechanically, following the Local Level Monitoring Committee’s decision, without a factual assessment, site inspection, or proper consideration of the KSREC report. They allege violation of the conserving act and argue that the status as of 12.08.2008 was not ascertained through a scientific process. The respondents rely on the KSREC report and LLMC decision, but the court notes Ext. P3 is not a speaking order and does not advert to the petitioners’ contentions. Citing Muraleedharan Nair v. Revenue Divisional Officer and Aparna Sasi Menon v. Revenue Divisional Officer, the court reiterates that the RDO must independently assess the lands’ status and decide whether removal from the Data Bank would adversely affect paddy cultivation or wetlands, and that a speaking order is essential. The court sets aside Ext. P3, directs the 2nd respondent to reconsider Form-5 applications within three months, to obtain a fresh KSREC report if needed, and to ensure compliance with these directions.
CRL.M.C. No. 1717 of 2024; CRL.M.C. No. 2192 of 2024; CRL.M.C. No. 3080 of 2024 This is a consolidated Kerala High Court exercise under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings in Crime No. 3580/2023 of Ernakulam Central Police Station, arising from alleged criminal breach of trust and cheating by a chit company. The petitioners—Babu K M (2nd accused), Jancy (3rd accused), and All For Chits Pvt Ltd represented by MD Kalathiparambil Michael Babu—seek quashing of proceedings in three CrL.MCs (1717/2024, 2192/2024, 3080/2024). The offences cited are 403, 406 and 420 r/w 34 IPC. The petition argues that the dispute has been settled amicably with the defacto complainant, and continuing prosecution would serve no public interest. Annexure A3 contains an affidavit from the 2nd respondent confirming settlement, supported by a Public Prosecutor who verifies its genuineness. The Court notes that the matter has been settled and there is no public interest involved; it also cites established precedents that permit amicable settlements to end criminal proceedings where appropriate (Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and Another; Narinder Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Another; Yogendra Yadav and Others v. State of Jharkhand and Another). After verification, the prosecution’s stance is that the affidavit is genuine and the defacto complainant supports it. Consequently, the proceedings are quashed and the Crl.MCs are allowed, with annexures and bail orders on record as reference.
BAIL APPL. NO. 1436 OF 2024 This Bail Application concerns P.C. Mathukkutty, the sole accused in Crime No. 417/2023 of Thannithodu Police Station, Pathanamthitta, who seeks bail under Section 439 CrPC. The prosecution alleges offences under Section 25(1)(B)(a) of the Arms Act and Section 4 r/w 5 of the Explosive Substances Act in connection with a search on 18 December 2023 during which a country-made gun, white potash, sodium, lead, gunpowder-like substances, and related items were recovered from the accused’s residence. The applicant was arrested on 15 January 2024 and has remained in custody since. The defence argues total innocence, claiming the contraband was discovered in an abandoned house and that the investigation has been completed with the recovery, suggesting no risk in release; the accused is aged 71 and suffers from multiple ailments. The prosecution opposes bail, asserting potential interference with witnesses, tampering with evidence, and the accused’s involvement in other forest offences (OR Nos. 4 and 5 of 2023; Crime 416/2023), including meat recovered at his house and hunting allegations. The court notes that the petitioner has already been granted pre-arrest bail in connected matters (Annexures A4-A5) and that investigation is practically complete. Considering the age, health, and passage of time, the court is inclined to grant bail with stringent conditions, including sureties, periodic appearances, non-possession of arms, passport surrender, and territorial restrictions, citing Sushila Aggarwal for permissible actions while on bail.
CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 & Connected Cases These are batch Criminal Revision Cases before the High Court of Kerala, reported as CRL.RC Nos. 611/2018 and connected numbers up to 723/2018, heard on 12 June 2024 by a Single Judge, Justice P. Somarajan. The matter stems from suo motu proceedings initiated under a resolution of the Administrative Committee in its meeting of 18.09.2017, challenging orders of acquittal recorded by Judicial Magistrates in various ST Nos. The core issue is the scope and exercise of Section 258 Cr.P.C., which empowers a Magistrate to stop further proceedings in a summons-case, after recording principal witnesses, and to pronounce an acquittal or discharge in certain circumstances. The court foregrounds the legal position that, in summons cases not instituted on complaint, the Magistrate may stop proceedings if reasonable steps to locate the accused have failed or if the costs of securing appearance would exceed the maximum fine. It cites a Division Bench decision in Suo Motu v. State Kerala and Another (2023 KHC Online 821) to illustrate the application of Section 258 Cr.P.C. The present batch is found to fall squarely within that provision, and therefore the stoppage of proceedings by the Magistrate deserves no interference. Consequently, the revisions fail and are closed. The order also consolidates the connected cases and clarifies the court's approach to applying Section 258 Cr.P.C. in similar suo motu proceedings. The decision thus reinforces the law governing stoppage under 258 and sets a precedent for similar cases.
Abdul Gafoor M., the petitioner, is the owner in possession of about 7.79 acres of land in Re Survey No. 22/137 of Valiyannur Village, Kannur Taluk, Kannur District. He challenges Ext.P2, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer rejecting his Form 5 application under the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008, seeking removal of his property from the Data Bank. He contends the land does not come within the definition of paddy land or wetland, and that its inclusion in the Data Bank is erroneous. The RDO’s order is criticized for lack of independent application of mind, as it relies solely on the Agricultural Officer’s report that the land is fallow paddy field. The petitioner also argues that the LLMC’s findings should not substitute for the RDO’s duty of independent assessment; the RDO should independently assess the land’s status as on 12.08.2008, the date of coming into force of Act, 2008, and obtain a KSRSEC report. The court recalls its decisions in Muraleedharan Nair v. RDO (2023) and Mather Nagar Residents Association v. District Collector, and Sudheesh v. RDO, emphasizing that merely fallow land or LLMC conclusions do not automatically classify land as wetland or paddy land; independent assessments and KSRSEC evidence are required. Ext.P2 is set aside and the matter remanded with directions to reconsider Form 5 with KSRSEC input within two months, after the petitioner applies for KSRSEC within two weeks.
This Regular Second Appeal arises from a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction in OS No.1285/2015 before the First Additional Munsiff Court, Ernakulam, challenging the plaintiff’s possession of the property known as Aswathy Stores & Cool Bar at Vyttila Junction, Kochi. The plaintiff, Madhukumar P, claims that the shop is situated on Government puramboke land and that he has been in possession and enjoyment since 1995, having invested Rs.1,00,000 initially and a further Rs.5,00,000 in August 2000 in renovating the structure. He seeks a permanent injunction to restrain others from interfering with his possession. The defendants counter that the plaint schedule property is covered by Sale Deed No.5197/1988 in the name of the 1st defendant, and that the plaintiff is merely in permissive occupation or as a licensee, not a rightful owner. The Trial Court dismissed the suit and allowed the counterclaim for possession in favour of the defendants. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the plaintiff’s status to be that of a licensee. The High Court then examined whether the plaintiff had established possession of the plaint schedule property and whether it was Government puramboke land, citing Ext.B2 (sale deed) and tax receipts. The court concluded the plaintiff had no independent right and that the plaint schedule property belonged to the 1st defendant. Finding no substantial question of law, the High Court dismissed the second appeal and all pending interlocutory applications.
Rajagopal V., the petitioner in WP(C) No. 7779 of 2024, challenges coercive SARFAESI proceedings initiated by the State Bank of India against two parcels of property described as agricultural and residential, seeking to quash Ext.P11 possession notice (dated 15.09.2023) and Ext.P13 order (08.01.2024) of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Palakkad in MC No. 3/2024. The petitioner contends the asset is not a secured asset, arguing that if the asset is non-secured, the petitioner may seek relief under Article 226 of the Constitution (or other forums) and should not be compelled to approach the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT). He also seeks waiver of vernacular translations. The respondents counter that the asset’s nature cannot be adjudicated in a writ petition since disputed facts exist and the documents show parts of the property used for agriculture and a residential site; two properties are alleged to be under SARFAESI. The court discusses Elsamma v. Kaduthuruthy Urban Co‑operative Bank and others to examine the scope of Sections 17(2) and 17(3) of SARFAESI and cites KHDFC Bank Ltd. and Jagdish Singh’s cases as supportive authorities, ultimately disposing of the petition. The judgment clarifies that the remedy depends on whether the asset is secured; the petitioner may pursue the DRT or civil courts accordingly, and the writ petition is disposed of.”,
This is a Criminal Misc. Case (Crl.M.C. No. 988 of 2025) filed by the sole accused Renjith seeking quashment of the criminal proceedings in SC No. 505/2022 arising from Crime No. 67/2021 of Mararikulam Police Station, Alappuzha. The offences alleged in the FIR include sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 354 IPC and sections 3(1)(c) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court relies on well-established quashing principles under Section 482 CrPC, tracing the guidance from Kulwinder Singh and its affirmation by Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Madan Mohan Abbot. The defacto complainant (3rd respondent) has given consent for quashing and submitted an affidavit stating that the disputes have been settled amicably, she bears no subsisting grievance, and does not object to quashing. The respondent state/Public Prosecutor supported the proceedings being quashed in light of the settlement and the absence of ongoing grievance. The court finds the settlement genuine and bonafide, notes that the offences include a compoundable count (Section 323), and determines that continuing the proceedings would amount to abuse of process and would not serve ends of justice. Consequently, the court allows the Crl.M.C. and quashes Annexures A1–A3 and all further proceedings in SC No. 505/2022.
CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 & Connected Cases These are suo motu Criminal Revision Cases heard by the Kerala High Court on 7 June 2024 before Justice P. Somarajan, involving CRL.RC No. 269 of 2018 and connected cases arising from orders by the Judicial Magistrates of Kollam in various STs in 2013. The petitions challenge orders in summons-proceedings initiated under a suo motu process pursuant to the Administrative Committee resolution dated 18.09.2017. The central issue is the power under Section 258 Cr.P.C., which permits stopping proceedings in summons cases where the accused cannot be procured despite best efforts or where the costs of procuring the accused would exceed the maximum fine prescribed by law, and where reasons are to be recorded. The court cites a Division Bench decision in State of Kerala and Another (2023 KHC Online 821) to illustrate the application of Section 258 and the circumstances justifying stoppage of proceedings. On 07.06.2024, the court held that these connected revisions fall squarely within Section 258 Cr.P.C. and that the prosecution’s request to halt proceedings merited no interference; in effect, the magistrates’ stoppage orders were sustained and the revisions were dismissed/closed. The bench deliberated the breadth of suo motu power while reaffirming that stoppage can be a legally tenable remedy when conditions meet statutory criteria.
