Vivid Non-Compliance Of Sec 111 CrPC And Failure To Mention Requisite Details Will Render Order Passed By Magistrate Non-Est: Kerala HC

While considering a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC seeking to quash summons issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the Kerala High Court ruled that vivid non-compliance of Section 111 of CrPC and failure to mention requisite details would render such order passed by the Magistrate non-sustainable.

The basis for filing such petition as claimed by Petitioner’s counsel was that the summons issued in form No.1 as per Section 61 of CrPC is not in conformity with the procedure laid down in Section 111 of CrPC and Section 111 of CrPC provides the way order under Sections 107, 108, 109 or 110 of CrPC to be made.

It was therefore claimed by the Petitioner that apparent non-compliance of Section 111 CrPC would render the order illegal and therefore, liable to be quashed.

Although this was opposed by the counsel for State, he could not justify the order since it did not depict the procedure provided under Section 111 of CrPC.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed that “it is the mandate that whenever a Magistrate intent to proceed acting under section 107, section 108, section 109, or section 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show cause under such section, he shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character, and class of sureties (if any), required and without furnishing such details, the order will be non-est”.

Advocate T. Sureshkumar appeared for the Petitioner, whereas Advocate Renjith George appeared for the Respondent.

After considering the submission and perusing the order of the Magistrate, the Bench found that it had been stated in the order that the attendance of the petitioner is necessary to answer a charge under Section 107 of CrPC and thereby he was directed to appear in person on Nov 26, 2021.

The Bench however noted that the order does not contain the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character, and class of sureties (if any), required.

Therefore, the Bench quashed the said order. However, the Bench clarified that such quashing shall not be a bar for the Sub Divisional Magistrate to issue appropriate order and to proceed under Section 107 of CrPC following the mode provided under Section 111 of CrPC.

Cause Title: Ismail Sahib v. State of Kerala

Click here to read/download the Order