Recovery Of Excess Payment Made By Mistake Is Permissible When Employee Furnished An Undertaking To Refund: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Application Under Sec 482 BNSS Is Maintainable Even If No Formal Order Of Arrest Is Passed By CGST Authorities: Allahabad High Court Consensual Physical Relationship Following Three-Year Courtship Does Not Amount To Rape If Marriage Promise Fails: Supreme Court Criminalization Of Civil Disputes | Courts Must Not Engage In Speculative Reasoning While Dealing With Quashing Petitions Under Section 482 CrPC: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money In The Absence Of Proof Of Demand Is Insufficient To Sustain Conviction Under Section 7 And 13 PC Act: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Quash NDPS Proceedings Merely Relying On Jurisprudence Regarding Evidentiary Value Of Confessional Statements: Supreme Court Extra-Judicial Confession Made While In Police Custody Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Supreme Court Taxing Authorities Must Levy Tax Based On The Form Of Goods At The Time Of Sale, Not On Potential End Use: Supreme Court Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders CBI Probe Into State Corruption Scams After Punjab Police Fails To Act On ED’s Section 66(2) PMLA Referral Section 482 CrPC | FIR Based On Consensual Relationship Gone Sour Cannot Be Sustained To Coerce Marriage: Supreme Court CISF Personnel Soliciting Bribes For Employment Is Guilty Of 'Gross Misconduct' Under Section 18 CISF Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court PIL | State Cannot Use Demolition Powers To Silence Whistleblowers Or Deflect Accountability: Punjab & Haryana High Court Criminal Proceedings Against In-Laws Without Specific Allegations Of Overt Acts Constitute Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 9 CPC | Admission In An Abated Suit Does Not Constitute Estoppel Against Landlord In A Fresh Eviction Proceeding: Calcutta High Court Arbitral Award Cannot Be Set Aside For Non-Adjudication Of Claims Specifically Abandoned By Parties: Delhi High Court Mere Long Possession Is Not Adverse Possession; Defendant Must Prove Hostile Animus To Deny Title Of True Owner: Himachal Pradesh High Court Reopening Of Assessment Under Sec 148A(d) Income Tax Act Cannot Be Based On 'Change Of Opinion' Without Fresh Tangible Material: Gujarat High Court Municipal Authorities Must Initiate Formal Proceedings And Grant Opportunity Of Hearing Before Sealing Premises:  Jharkhand High Court Court Cannot Compel Third-Party To Undergo DNA Test Unless Necessary For Just Adjudication: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Cannot Defer Bail Application Merely Because A Transfer Petition Is Pending In High Court: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 108 BNS | Mere Taunts Or Harassment Regarding Not Bearing A Male Child Do Not Constitute Abetment To Suicide: Rajasthan High Court Daily-Wage Employees Treated As Permanent Under 1988 Government Resolution Entitled To Annual Increment Benefits: 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