Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Sets Aside Magistrate’s Order, Says ‘Speaking Order is Necessary Before Invoking Section 323 Cr.P.C. : Kerala High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Ernakulam, Kerala: In a pivotal ruling, the Kerala High Court has set aside an order passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Payyannur, in the case C.P. No. 14 of 2020. The Honourable Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan emphasized that a “speaking order is necessary before invoking the powers under Section 323 Cr.P.C.”

The case initially involved eight accused who were charged under various sections of the IPC, including 324, 506 (i)(ii), and 308. The learned Magistrate had converted the case from a calendar case (CC) to a committal proceeding (CP), invoking Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C).

Justice P.V.Kunhikrishnan said, “To invoke Section 323 Cr.P.C, it should appear to the Magistrate that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court. The Magistrate is required to give a reason for thinking that the case ought to be tried by the Sessions Court, while invoking Section 323 Cr.P.C.” He further elaborated that the Magistrate’s order was not a speaking order, and therefore needs to be reconsidered.

The High Court, therefore, set aside the previous order, and directed the Magistrate Court to reconsider whether Section 323 Cr.P.C should be invoked or not. This directive comes in light of the observations made in the High Court’s order, emphasizing the need for a proper “speaking order” before making such a significant change in the trial’s jurisdiction.

The case has been sent back to the lower court for reconsideration, in line with the High Court’s observations.

Legal experts say this judgment could serve as a precedent, reiterating the importance of due process and proper reasoning in legal proceedings.

Date of Decision: 16 October 2023

KUTHIRALAMUTTAM SAJI   VS  STATE OF KERALA

Latest Legal News