Sidheeq vs State of Kerala

Type Court Judgment Court Kerala Orders Decided Apr 12, 2024

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1323220

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1323220
Court: Kerala Orders High Court
Judge: Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas
Decided On: Apr 12, 2024
Case Number: Crl.MC/3440/2024

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sidheeq

Respondent

State of Kerala

Excerpt

.....by the sub divisional magistrate, ottappalam under section 111 of the cr.p.c.2. a perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is only a show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not becalled upon to execute a bond under section 107 of the cr.p.c. it is evident from a reading of the aforesaid order that petitioner was asked to appear on 04.04.2024.3. sri.mohammed aslam p.a., the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted that pursuant to the aboveorder of the sub divisional magistrate, petitioner had appeared and filedan objection as well. however, he apprehends that the procedure contemplated under law will not be followed by the sub divisional magistrate, since without complying with the said procedure, petitioner is being insisting upon to execute a bond.4. having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well asthe learned public prosecutor, i am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner that without complying with the procedure contemplated under the statute, the sub divisional magistrate will insist on the petitioner is without any basis. once a show cause notice under section 111 of the cr.p.c. is issued, necessarily, the magistrate will have to follow the procedure contemplated under law especially when an obligation isfiled. therefore, the apprehension is without any basis and i find no reason to interfere with annexure a1 order, at this stage. accordingly, this crl.m.c.is dismissed. sd/- bechu kurian thomas, judge rkm appendix of crl.mc 3440/2024 petitioner's annexures : annexure a1 true copy of the notice received by the petitioner in m.c. no. 37/2024 dated annexure a2 true copy of the fir in crime no. annexure a2(a) true copy of the fir in crime no.

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BECHU KURIAN THOMAS FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946 SC NO.37 OF 2024 OF SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, OTTAPPALAM PETITIONER/ RESPONDENT : SIDHEEQ AGED 36 YEARS S/O ABDUL AZEES, MALLIYIL, CHANHALIERI KUMARAMPUTHUR, PALAKKAD, KERALA, PIN - 678 762 BY ADVS. P.A.MOHAMMED ASLAM E.B.THAJUDDEEN SARATH SASI IRSHAD V.P. MIDHUN MOHAN ARTHUR B. GEORGE RESPONDENT/ COMPLAINANT : STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, MANNARKKAD POLICE STATION, THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, PIN - 682 031 SMT. SREEJA V., PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, J.
Crl.M.C.No.3440 of 2024 Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024

ORDER

Petitioner is challenging Annexure A1 order issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ottappalam under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C.

2. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that it is only a show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause why he should not be

called upon to execute a bond under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. It is evident from a reading of the aforesaid order that petitioner was asked to appear on 04.04.2024.

3. Sri.Mohammed Aslam P.A., the learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order submitted that pursuant to the above

order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate, petitioner had appeared and filed

an objection as well. However, he apprehends that the procedure contemplated under law will not be followed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, since without complying with the said procedure, petitioner is being insisting upon to execute a bond.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

the learned Public Prosecutor, I am of the view that the apprehension of the petitioner that without complying with the procedure contemplated under the statute, the Sub Divisional Magistrate will insist on the petitioner is without any basis. Once a show cause notice under Section 111 of the Cr.P.C. is issued, necessarily, the Magistrate will have to follow the procedure contemplated under law especially when an obligation is

filed. Therefore, the apprehension is without any basis and I find no reason to interfere with Annexure A1 order, at this stage. Accordingly, this Crl.M.C.is dismissed. Sd/- BECHU KURIAN THOMAS, JUDGE RKM APPENDIX OF CRL.MC 3440/2024 PETITIONER'S ANNEXURES : Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN M.C. NO. 37/2024 DATED Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO. Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE FIR IN CRIME NO.

Same Court & Year Kerala Orders · 2024 Same Parties Sidheeq vs State of Kerala Same Judge Honourable Mr. Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas