Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
JITENDRA KUMAR, J.
Lalan Prasad Singh S/O Late Swarup Lal Prasad Singh – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Bihar through The Principal Secretary., Food And Civil Supply Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. – Respondent
Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1119 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2026
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 107 – Direction to execute peace bond and to maintain peace – Where substantive offence is committed by a person, proper procedure is to institute regular prosecution against persons committing offence and not to initiate proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. – Vague allegation cannot be basis of initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. – There must be allegation of specific overt act giving apprehension of breach of public peace – If effect of any dispute or tension is confined only to few individuals who are party to dispute, such dispute could not give any apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquillity – Such situations are not contemplated under Section 107 Cr.P.C. giving extraordinary jurisdiction to Executive Magistrate. (Paras 25, 28 and 32)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 107 – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Direction to execute peace bond and to maintain peace – In view of efficacious alternative remedy being available to petitioner, writ petition is generally not entertained, though availability of efficacious alternative remedy is not absolute bar to entertainability of writ petition – Petitioner has committed substantive offence punishable under Indian Penal Code and he should have been prosecuted for such offences – Executive Magistrate has initiated proceeding without any jurisdiction – There was no occasion for Executive Magistrate to initiate proceeding against petitioner under Section 107 Cr.P.C. – Initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. against petitioner is nothing but infringement/curtailment of fundamental right of liberty of petitioner as granted by Constitution under Article 21 – Order passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, quashed – Petition allowed. (Paras 38, 40 to 43)
JUDGMENT :
The present criminal writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking quashing of the entire proceeding in Case No. 437 of 2021 initiated vide order dated 03.04.2021 passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur under Section 107 Cr.PC.
2. The said proceeding has been initiated by learned Executive Magistrate in the light of the letter bearing No. 243 dated 03.04.2021 written by Assistant District Supply Officer, Naugachhia. As per the letter, the petitioner unnecessarily harasses the PDS dealers. He also demands money from them and on account of non-payment of the same, he threatens to implicate them in false cases.
3. In view of the letter, the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC was initiated against the petitioner herein by learned S.D.M to maintain the peace. Learned S.D.M also directed the petitioner herein to appear before him to show cause why bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties is not executed by him to maintain peace for a year. Accordingly, notice was issued to the petitioner by learned S.D.M.
4. On notice, the petitioner appeared before learned S.D.M. and filed his show cause, submitting that the petitioner had filed two R.T.I. petitions against District Supply Officer in regard to distribution under Pradhanmantri Pravasi Majdoor and regarding his movable and immovable property and hence, the false complaint has been made by the Assistant District Supply Officer against the petitioner herein which leading to initiation of the present proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC.
5. Evidence was also invited from both the sides and on the basis of the pleading and the evidence, the learned S.D.M. came to the finding that the petitioner herein extended threat of journalism to Supply Department and different schools of Education Department and demanded money and hence, the employees and P.D.S. dealers lived under fear from him. Hence, there was possibility of breach of peace in his area. Hence, he directed the petitioner herein to execute bond of Rs.1,00,000/- with two sureties for one year to maintain peace. This final order was passed on 02.04.2022.
6. I heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-5 for the State.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the alleged facts and circumstances, the initiation of the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC against the petitioner is totally unwarranted and beyond the extent and scope of jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate under Section 107 Cr.PC. The whole proceeding is absolutely malafide and arbitrary and, accordingly, liable to be quashed.
8. He also submits that though the final order in the proceeding initiated under Section 107 Cr.PC has been passed concluding the proceeding and even the period of the bond of one year has lapsed, the adjudication of the legal issue regarding maintainability of such proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC in the alleged facts and circumstances, requires to be adjudicated by this Court, so that Executive Magistrates do not misuse the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC to harass the common citizens.
9. However, learned AC to AAG-5 defends the initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC. He also submits that the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC has been already concluded vide final order dated 02.04.2022 by which the petitioner was directed to execute the bond for one year and even that period of one year has passed. Hence, the present writ petition has become infructuous, and, therefore, there is no need to adjudicate the matter.
10. I considered the submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the material on record including the record of learned S.D.M.
11. Undisputedly, the proceeding initiated under Section 107 Cr.PC against the petitioner is already concluded vide order dated 02.04.2022 and even the period of bond required to be executed by the Petitioner herein to maintain peace for one year has passed. However, in view of the importance of the issue involved, I co
A preliminary order under Section 107 requires clear evidence of imminent threat to public peace, not merely past criminal involvement.
An Executive Magistrate can initiate proceedings under S. 107 Cr.P.C. without a prior incident if there is a likelihood of a breach of peace.
Preventive proceedings under Section 126 BNSS inapplicable to private land disputes lacking threat to public tranquillity; Section 111 order invalid without detailing information substance, bond amou....
The necessity for the magistrate to provide concrete evidence of a threat to peace before issuing orders under Section 107 of the CrPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provision under Section 116(6) of Cr.PC is mandatory, and the inquiry must be completed within six months, with any extension requiring sp....
An order under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is invalid if it does not include the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond, the term for which it is to be in force, and the charact....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
