BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 26.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI & Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.4506 & 4508 of 2026 Sekar ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The 2^nd Class Executive Magistrate cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Thruvengadam, Tenkasi District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Kuruvikulam Police Station, (LIR No.45/2026)

Tenkasi District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to 107 of Cr.P.C., proceedings in A1/M.C.No.45/2026 dated

11.02.2026 initiated by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Baskar Mathuram For Respondents : Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

Preface This Criminal Original Petition has been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (corresponding to Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), seeking to quash the summons issued by the respondent Executive Magistrate initiating preventive proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., 1973 /

Section 126 BNSS, 2023.

Factual Matrix

2. The petitioner is a resident within the jurisdiction of the respondent Executive Magistrate. On 11.02.2026, the first respondent issued a summon calling upon the petitioner to appear in proceedings purportedly initiated under Section 111 Cr.P.C., 1973 on the allegation that the petitioner is likely to cause breach of peace. The summon does not disclose the substance of information received, the specific grounds for such satisfaction, or the material relied upon by the Executive Magistrate for initiating the preventive proceedings.

Case of the petitioner

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned summon has been issued in a mechanical and routine manner, without recording the mandatory subjective satisfaction required under law. It is contended that no written order as contemplated under Section 111 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 127 BNSS has been passed or communicated to the petitioner, setting out the grounds, nature of information, or necessity for initiation of proceedings. The learned counsel would further submit that the impugned action results in unwarranted interference with the personal liberty of the petitioner and amounts to abuse of the preventive jurisdiction.

Case of the respondent

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), appearing for the respondent, would submit that the proceedings are preventive in nature and intended to maintain public peace, and that the petitioner can raise objections before the Executive Magistrate.

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

Point for consideration

6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the summons issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 107 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 126 BNSS is vitiated for non-compliance with the mandatory statutory safeguards, warranting interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 528 BNSS?

Analysis

7. Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 126 BNSS, though preventive, have serious civil consequences and directly impinge upon the personal liberty of an individual. Therefore, strict compliance with the procedural safeguards prescribed under the statute is mandatory.

8. Section 111 Cr.P.C., 1973 / Section 127 BNSS obligates the Executive Magistrate to pass an order in writing setting forth the substance of the information received, the grounds for initiation of proceedings, and the particulars of the bond proposed to be executed.

9. A mere issuance of summons, without disclosure of the foundational order or application of independent judicial mind, renders the initiation of proceedings legally unsustainable. Preventive jurisdiction cannot be exercised on vague apprehensions, omnibus allegations, or at the mere behest of the police. Such mechanical initiation of proceedings is antithetical to the constitutional