Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.49 seconds)
Documents citing Gireesh K P vs State Of Kerala on 16 March, 2022

Sidique vs State Of Kerala

10.On perusing Annexure-A1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner . The only crime mentioned of in the order is the one registered under Section 107 of the Code by the Sub Inspector of Police. That could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioners herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances , and on his failure, to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Abdulkhader vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate

9.On perusing Annexure-A1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioners are Crl.M.C.2426/2016 7 involved in two crimes could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioners herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order. In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure , to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Ansari vs State Represented By The Station House ...

9.On perusing Annexure-A1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The only crime mentioned of in the order is the one registered under Section 107 of the Code by the Sub Inspector of Police. That could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioners herein. (see Santhosh Crl.M.C.2462/2016 7 M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure, to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Prashob.P vs State Of Kerala on 27 April, 2106

9.On perusing Annexure-1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The fact that the petitioner was involved in three crimes could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause Crl.M.C.2974/2016 6 why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure, to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sanoop N.K vs State Of Kerala

1.On perusing Annexure-A1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a Crl.M.C.2843/2016 7 callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in certain crimes registered by the police cannot have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837]; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Roy vs The Sub Inspector Of Police

9.On perusing Annexure-VI order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in two crimes could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order. In the absence of any evidence Crl.M.C.5919/2016 7 rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure , to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Libin vs State Of Kerala

8.On perusing Annexure-1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in a single crime could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioner herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order. In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure , to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Manu vs State Of Kerala

10.On perusing Annexure-1 order, it is evident that the Sub Divisional Magistrate has disregarded the statutory mandate and has invoked powers vested on him in a callous manner. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in a single crime could not have been taken as the basis to issue a preventive order against the petitioners herein. (see Santhosh M.V. and others v. State of Kerala [2014 (3) KLT 837; Girish P and Others v. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929]). The reasons which led the Sub Divisional Magistrate to initiate proceeding is not disclosed in the order. In the absence of any evidence rendering a breach of peace probable, a Crl.M.C.6726/2016 7 Magistrate is not justified in calling upon parties, to show cause why he should not enter into recognisances, and on his failure, to make an order under the section.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - V R Vijayaraghavan - Full Document

Arjun vs State Of Kerala on 23 February, 2024

3. The decisions in Girish P vs. State of Kerala [2009 (4) KHC 929] and in Ahammed Kabeer vs. Sate of kerala [2014 KHC 186] are relevant in this context. In order to compel a person to explain the reason for showing the cause, it must be specifically mentioned in the order asking to show cause. Vague or inconclusive statements cannot be the Crl.M.C.No.11038 of 2023 -:3:- basis for resorting to the procedure under Section 107 of Cr.P.C or issuing an order under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. I am convinced that Annexure-A does not satisfy the requirements of Section 107 or Section 111 of Cr.P.C.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B K Thomas - Full Document
1