BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 07/04/2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE L. VICTORIA GOWRI M.Sivalingam ... Petitioner Vs

1. The Superintendent of Police, Thoothukudi District.

2. The Inspector of Police, Muthaiyapuram Police Station, Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents PRAYER :-

To writ of Mandamus, directing the 1st respondent, to forbearing the

2nd respondent from initiating proceedings under Section 110 CrPC against the petitioner and not to harass the petitioner or compel him to furnish sureties before revenue authorities on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2026.

For Petitioner : Mr. K.P.Narayanakumar, Advocate.

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sakthi Kumar Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent, to forbear the second respondent from initiating proceedings under Section 110 CrPC against the petitioner and not to harass the petitioner or compel him to furnish sureties before revenue authorities on the basis of petitioner's representation dated 25.03.2026.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is a law abiding citizen and the sole breadwinner of his family. He do not have any criminal antecedents. However, during the year 2024, he was brutally attacked by a group of 7 persons belonging to his locality in which he had sustained grievous injuries, following which a first information report in Crime No.251 of 2024 was registered as against 7 persons. In this regard, there is a dispute in the village, between the petitioner and the aforesaid person. However, thereafter on 21.03.2026 at about 10:30 pm, the second respondent police had started harassing and intimidating the petitioner to appear before them and for initiating proceedings under Section 110 of Cr.P.C. Hence this writ petition.

3. Learned Government Advocate submitted there is a threat to the petitioner's life due to the previous enmity against another faction of people. Only for the sake of the petitioner's welfare, such initiative has been taken.

4. The learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side), 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.

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 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

7. 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.

8. 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 .

9. 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 preventive process. The affected person is entitled to appear before the Executive Magistrate, seek copies of materials relied upon, raise objections, and contest the proceedings on merits.

10. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973,