District Judiciary Retirement Age | Supreme Court Directs Enhancement To 62 Years To Arrest Attrition Of Judicial Talent Slogans Inciting Armed Rebellion Or Challenging Sovereignty Cannot Be Equated With Religious Expressions: Allahabad High Court Denies Bail Revisional Authority Under AP ROR Act Has Jurisdiction To Direct Inquiry Into Illegal Transfers Of Assigned Land: Andhra Pradesh High Court Indian Law Does Not Recognise 'Joint Parenting' As A Statutory Concept; Child Welfare Remains Paramount: Bombay High Court Order 26 Rule 9 CPC | Court Must Appoint Survey-Knowing Commissioner In Suits Alleging Physical Encroachment And Boundary Disputes: Calcutta High Court Section 33-C(2) ID Act | Labour Court Has Jurisdiction To Recover Consequential Benefits Arising From CAT Orders: Delhi High Court Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC | Procedural Law Is Meant For Advancement Of Justice; Technicalities Should Not Scuttle Opportunity To Lead Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court High Court Can Condition Condonation Of Delay In Land Acquisition Appeals Upon Waiver Of Interest For Delayed Period: Bombay High Court Employees Compensation Act | Insurance Company Not Liable To Indemnify Penalty Imposed On Employer Under Section 4-A(3)(b): Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees’ Compensation Act | Failure To Frame Issue On Employer-Employee Relationship Vitiates Commissioner’s Award: Kerala High Court Default Bail Under Section 187 BNSS | Period Of Investigation Depends On Substance Of Allegations In FIR, Not Merely Mentioned Sections: Madhya Pradesh High Court SARFAESI Act | Forfeiture Of Earnest Money Deposit Must Be Challenged Under Section 17 Before DRT, Not Via Writ Petition: Kerala High Court

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