Sri K.M.Ghate, learned counsel for the petitioners and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents are

present.

Sri Anupam Agarwal, Inspector General of Police

North West and Sri Chennabasavanna Langoti, Superintendent

of Police, Bidar, are present through Video Conferencing.

3.

This petition arose on account of the challenge to

the action initiated by the respondent/Taluka Executive

Magistrate based on the Preventive Action Report filed by

Chitaguppa Police, whereby a case came to be registered as

PAR No.43/2022 under Section 107 of Cr.P.C.

- 3 -

4.

At the time of hearing, this Court expressed

displeasure about the format that has been used to provide

information to the Tahsildar/Taluka Executive Magistrate.

5.

The learned High Court Government Pleader has

filed a memo with a copy of the order passed in Criminal

Petition No.3253/2012 and subsequently, Standing Order

No.1020/2018 issued by the Director General and Inspector

General

of

Police,

Karnataka

State,

Bengaluru,

dated

27.06.2018.

6.

According to the learned High Court Government

Pleader, based on the said Standing Order No.1020/2018 dated

27.06.2018, a format has been prepared by the IT Cell of the

Police and therefore, Preventive Action Report is registered in

the said format.

7.

It is pertinent to note that the format that has been

used to provide information to the Taluka Executive Magistrate

does not have any legal sanctity, inasmuch as, no such format

is available under the Code of Criminal Procedure in the

appendix. However, for the sake of uniformity and convenience,

such a format has been prepared by the Police Department in

- 4 -

pursuance of the Standing Order referred to supra. To have an

uniform format for providing the information to the Tahsildar/

Taluka Executive Magistrate for the Preventive Action to be

taken by acting under the provisions of Sections 107 and 110

of Cr.P.C., is appreciable, but the said format cannot be replica

of an FIR, as is contemplated under Section 154 or Section 155

of

Cr.P.C.,

for

cognizable

and

non-cognizable

offences

respectively. Therefore, it is advisable that a different form is

formulated/generated by the Police Department to provide

information to the Taluka Executive Magistrate for the

preventive action in case of alleged breach of peace and

tranquility in the society as is contemplated under Sections 107

or 110 of Cr.P.C.

8.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has

filed a memo and the same reads as under:

“The counsel for the petitioners most respectfully

as follows:

In view of the discussion made by the Hon’ble

Court, directing the Respondent police, not to continue

procedure now adopted by the police. So, the petitioner

does not pressed for orders on merits. So accordingly

the criminal petition may be disposed of.

Hence this memo.”

- 5 -

9.

In view of the memo, no further order is necessary

to be passed in the present petition.

10.

However, this Court has expressed its displeasure

over the procedure that has been adopted by the Police as well

as the Taluka Executive Magistrate in deciding the preventive

action information alleged against the petitioners.

11.

Accordingly, the following order is passed:

ORDER

The Criminal Petition stands disposed of with the

observations referred to in the body of the order.

Sd/-

JUDGE

NB

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71