BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 20.02.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI & Crl.M.P.(MD)No.3945 of 2024 C.Arunachalam ... Petitioner Vs.

1. The Executive Magistrate/ Tahsildar, O/o., the Executive Magistrate/ Thasildar, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.

2.The Inspector of Police, Ambasamuthiram Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents PRAYER : Petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to call for the records pertaining to the impugned proceedings of the first respondent dated

06.02.2026 and quash the same as illegal. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Thirumurugan For Respondents : Mr.S.Ravi Additional Public Prosecutor

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, seeking to quash the summon issued by the first respondent Executive Magistrate under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure /129 of BNSS, 2023 and the consequential proceedings initiated thereunder.

Factual matrix

2. The petitioner is stated to be a resident within the jurisdiction of the 1^st respondent Executive Magistrate. The grievance of the petitioner is with respect to the issuance of summon dated 06.02.2026, calling upon the petitioner to appear before the Executive Magistrate in proceedings purportedly initiated under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973.

3. According to the petitioner, the impugned summon is arbitrary, mechanical, and issued without adherence to the mandatory requirements contemplated under Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure/Chapter IX of BNSS,2023.

Case of the petitioner

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent Executive Magistrate has issued the impugned summons without recording any prima facie satisfaction that the petitioner is a habitual offender or that his conduct falls within any of the categories enumerated under Section

110 Cr.P.C., 1973.

5. It is further contended that no material has been disclosed to the petitioner, nor has any prior notice or opportunity been afforded, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel would therefore submit that the continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law and seeks quashing of the summons.

Case of the respondent

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondents, would submit that the proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973 are preventive in nature and that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of appearing before the Executive Magistrate and placing his objections. It is contended that the summons issued is only a preliminary step and no final order has yet been passed against the petitioner.

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

Point for consideration

8. The point that arises for consideration is whether this Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 to quash the summons issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 BNSS,2023 at the threshold?

Analysis

9. Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure/129 of BNSS,2023 empowers the Executive Magistrate to initiate preventive proceedings against persons who are habitual offenders or whose conduct is such as to pose a threat to public peace and tranquillity. Such proceedings, though preventive, have serious civil consequences and therefore require strict adherence to the statutory safeguards.

10. It is well settled that before initiating proceedings under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 BNSS, the Executive Magistrate must arrive at a subjective satisfaction based on relevant material and must follow the procedure prescribed under Sections 111 to 116 Cr.P.C., 1973/130 to 135 of BNSS,2023 .

11. At the same time, it is equally settled that a summons issued under Section 110 Cr.P.C., 1973/129 BNSS is only an initial step in the p