BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 24.02.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI and Crl.M.P(MD)Nos.4244 & 4247 of 2025 Karthigai Selvan ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate cum Tahsildar, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District. 2.The Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram Town Police Station, Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents Prayer : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, to call for the entire records of the proceedings initiated by 1^st respondent in M.C.No.A3/52/599/26/2026 dated 13.02.2026 and quash the said proceedings as against the petitioner.

For Petitioner : Mr.B.Arun For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Preface:

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the summons issued by the respondent Executive Magistrate under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure /129 BNSS,2023 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, as being illegal, arbitrary, and violative of the mandatory safeguards prescribed under Chapter VIII of the Code/IX of BNSS,2023.

Factual matrix:

2. The petitioner is a resident within the jurisdiction of the respondent Executive Magistrate. On 13.02.2026, the respondent issued a summons to the petitioner purporting to initiate proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 BNSS,2023, calling upon the petitioner to appear and show cause as to why he should not be directed to execute a bond for good behaviour. The summons does not disclose the basis for initiation of the proceedings, nor does it specify the particular clause of Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973 /129 BNSS,2023 under which the petitioner is alleged to fall.

Case of the petitioner:

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned summons has been issued in a mechanical manner without any application of mind and without recording the mandatory subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is a habitual offender or a person falling within the categories enumerated under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 of BNSS, 2023.

4. It is further contended that no material particulars have been furnished, no preliminary satisfaction order under Section 111 Cr.P.C., 1973/130 BNSS has been served, and the summons does not disclose the nature of allegations or prior instances relied upon. According to the petitioner, the initiation of preventive proceedings in such a casual manner results in serious infringement of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore warrants interference by this Court.

Case of the respondent:

5. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent, would submit that the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973 /129 BNSS are preventive in nature and that the petitioner can raise all objections before the Executive Magistrate during the enquiry.

6. Heard the learned counsels on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.

Point for consideration:

7. The point that arises for consideration is whether the summons issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 BNSS is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973?

Analysis:

8. Proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 BNSS , though preventive, have grave civil consequences and directly impinge upon the personal liberty of an individual. Therefore, strict compliance with the procedure contemplated under Sections 110 to 116 Cr.P.C., 1973/130 to 135 BNSS is mandatory and not a mere formality.

9. Section 111 Cr.P.C., 1973/130 BNSS mandates that the Executive Magistrate shall make an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be in force, and the number, character, and class of sureties required.

10.