Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court 'Promotion Effected Long Ago Not To Be Disturbed': Supreme Court Sets Aside HC Order Quashing 13-Year-Old Promotion; Holds 'Laying Rules' Directory Not Mandatory "Mere Oral Assertion Or 'Data Loss' Letter Not Enough To Prove Driving Licence Validity; Owner Has Strict Duty To Ensure Renewal": Supreme Court Reinstates Insurer's Non-Liability, Applies 'Pay & Recover' Principle "Zero Tolerance To Corruption": Supreme Court Reinstates FIRs Against Karnataka Cops, Slams High Court For 'Mini-Trial' & Exceeding S.482 CrPC Powers ‘Ancillary Services Don't Override Carriage’: Supreme Court Upholds 7.5% Presumptive Income For Cruise Operators Under Section 44B IT Act, Rejects Revenue's Higher Tax Claim Division Bench Refuses To Quash FIR, Holds It Cannot Nullify Single Judge's Final Order Directing Registration Of Case: Allahabad High Court High Court Leave Under Clause XII Doesn't Protect Transferred Suits; Section 16 CPC Strictly Applies To City Civil Court In 'Suits For Land': Bombay High Court Joint Account Holder Who Didn't Sign The Dishonoured Cheque Cannot Be Prosecuted Under Section 138 NI Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Suits Cannot Be Consolidated If Parties, Properties, And Causes Of Action Are Different: Telangana High Court P&H High Court Halts All Construction In Mohali's Shivalik Foothills Over Failure To Demarcate 'Forest Land', Bars Land Sale No Embargo On Issuing Single Statutory Notice Under Section 138 NI Act For Multiple Dishonoured Cheques: Orissa High Court District Collector Has No Jurisdiction Under CrPC To Order Reopening Of Investigation Or Recall Of Closure Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Exclusive Monopoly Over Geographical Term 'Malabar' In Isolation; Protection Limited To Registered Composite Marks: Kerala High Court Person In 'De Facto' Control Is A Promoter Under Companies Act Even If Designated As Professional Director: Karnataka High Court Supreme Court Urges Mandatory Animal Tagging, Strict Enforcement of Gaushala Laws To Tackle Stray Cattle Crisis; Holds Owners Accountable "Don't Render Victims Remediless": Supreme Court Slams High Court For Dismissing Plea Over Stray Bull Death, Awards ₹15 Lakh Compensation Supreme Court Red-Flags 'Unregulated Shadow Work' of Private Investigators, Calls For Legislative Overhaul on Digital Evidence & Privacy Rights 125 CrPC | Wife 'Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance If Adultery Established Ex Facie': Supreme Court Evidence Against Absconder Invalid Without Prior S.299 CrPC Order: SC Acquits Murder Accused Ad Valorem Court Fee Mandatory For Section 54 Appeals Challenging Land Acquisition Awards: Supreme 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