Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3657
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Bibhas Ranjan De, J
Utpal Kumar Ray – Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal – Respondent
CRIMINAL REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CRR 257 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Utpal Kumar Ray
For the Respondents: Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Aniruddha Biswas
The jurisdiction to address applications under Section 107 of the CrPC lies exclusively with Executive Magistrates; Judicial Magistrates lack the authority to direct the provision of non-seized documents related to security for peace.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 528 - Relationship with CrPC Section 107 - The petitioner sought a copy of a mass petition regarding threats allegedly made by him; Ld. Magistrate rejected on jurisdictional grounds - Ld. Counsel submitted that the content was not seized and thus, not part of proceedings - Jurisdiction to deal with Section 107 rests with the Executive Magistrate. (Paras 2, 4, 6, 8, 9)
(B) Jurisdiction of Judicial Magistrate - The authority to entertain applications related to security for keeping peace under Section 107 rests solely with Executive Magistrates, thus the Judicial Magistrate’s order was found to lack legal ground. (Paras 5, 9)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the mass petition copy presented to the investigating officer, asserting it was critical to his defense. The refusal was grounded in the document's non-seizure and perceived lack of relevance to ongoing proceedings.
Findings of Court:
The application was dismissed due to lack of merit and jurisdiction. An Executive Magistrate holds exclusive jurisdiction over Section 107 proceedings, which precludes the Judicial Magistrate from granting such requests.
Issues: The main issues centered on jurisdiction concerning the supply of non-seized documents and the proper procedural application of Section 107.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified that a mass petition's relevance is dependent on seizure by the investigating officer, emphasizing Executive Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 107 of the CrPC.
Result: Dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. discussion of relevant legal provisions under crpc. (Para 6) |
| 2. court confirms executive magistrate's exclusive jurisdiction under section 107. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 3. final ruling on the dismissal of the revision application. (Para 9 , 10) |
Heard On : :23.07.2025 Judgment On : 02.08.2025 Bibhas Ranjan De, J. :
1. The instant revision Application has been preferred assailing the order dated 25.03.2025 passed in connection with G.R. Case No. 341 of 2020 wherein Ld. Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Sadar Cooch Behar had refused the prayer seeking necessary direction to supply copy of Mass Petition which was received by the investigating officer during investigation of this case.
2. Ld. Magistrate recorded his order for rejection on the ground of lack of jurisdiction to supply any such copy of mass petition which was not seized by the investigating officer and also on the ground that the petition was a misconceived one with the sole motive to unnecessarily drag the case. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred the instant revision application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (herein after referred to as BNSS ) with a prayer for setting aside of the impugned order dated 25.03.2025.
3. The petitioner, appearing in person, by referring to the charge sheet no. 143/20 dated 31.05.2019 has submitted that during investigation the investigating officer received a written mass petition from the villagers alleging inter alia that petitioner had threatened them with dire consequences and the I.O. upon receipt of such mass petition submitted a non FIR prosecution report under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (herein after referred to as CrPC) against the accused. Upon knowledge of such incident the petitioner had filed an application before Ld. Trial Court with a prayer for providing a copy of the said mass petition but the Ld. Trial Judge allegedly failed to consider the admissibility of the application and rejected the same by ignoring the statutory provision of law.
4. Per contra, Ld. Counsel, appearing on behalf of the State has vociferously contended that the document that has been sought for on behalf of the petitioner has not been seized by the I.O. during investigation and the existence of such document has only been mentioned in the charge sheet due to the fact that it was received relating to sudden activities of the accused for which a Non FIR Prosecution Report was submitted under Section 107 of the CrPC and it is not a part and parcel of the investigation which has been done in connection with this case.
5. Before parting with, Ld. Counsel alternatively argued that the prosecution under Section 107 of the CrPC is under the exclusive domain of the Executive Magistrate and therefore Ld.
Trial Judge/Judicial Magistrate has no jurisdiction to entertain the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner.
6. Before delving into the material intricacies of the case at hand, for brevity of the discussion it would be pertinent to first discuss the specific provision of Section 107 of the CrPC (corresponding to Section 126 of the BNSS ) which reads as follows:-
“107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases:-
1. When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
2. Proceeding under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdict
