Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 18924
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Vinod Kumar Bharwani
ASHUTOSH SHARMA S/O SHRI SORAUBH SHARMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 885/2022 | Criminal Appeal No. 10/2022 | Case No. 288/2022
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mohan Lal Goyal
For the Respondents: Sudesh Kumar Saini
Proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C. require the Magistrate to record independent satisfaction and reasons; mechanical orders passed on pre-printed proformas without application of mind are legally unsustainable.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged orders passed under Sections 107 and 117 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, directing the maintenance of peace and tranquility. The proceedings were initiated following a quarrel at Janakpuri-II, leading to the petitioner's detention under Section 151 Cr.P.C. The petitioner contended that the orders were passed mechanically on pre-printed proformas without the application of judicial mind. The court examined whether the Executive Magistrate had formed an independent opinion and recorded sufficient grounds for the proceedings. The court observed that 'the satisfaction contemplated under Section 107 Cr.P.C. must be reflected from the order itself' and strongly disapproved the practice of using cyclostyled proformas, noting that 'judicial orders cannot be permitted to be reduced to mere mechanical exercises'. Consequently, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned orders dt.22.02.2022 & dt.31.05.2022 passed by the ld. Courts below are, hereby, quashed & set aside.
[2026:RJ-JP:19905]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 885/2022
Ashutosh Sharma S/o Shri Soraubh Sharma, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident Of Plot No. 151-B, Janakpuri II Imli Fatak, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohan Lal Goyal, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudesh Kumar Saini, P.P.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
Reserved on ::: 10/04/2026
Pronounced on ::: 26/05/2026
***
Instant revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner
under Section 397 r/w Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 against the order dt.22.02.2022 passed by ld. Additional Executive
Magistrate & Additional Commissioner of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur
District Jaipur (South), in Case No. 288/2022, whereby the petitioner
was directed to maintain peace & tranquility for a period of six months
and to furnish a personal bond & surety under Section 117 of Cr.P.C.
The petitioner has also challenged the order dt.31.05.2022
passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge No.4, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in
Criminal Appeal No. 10/2022, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner
against the order dt.22.02.2022 came to be dismissed.
In this case, on 21.02.2022 an information was received at
Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (South) to the effect that a quarrel
was taking place at Janakpuri-II. Pursuant thereto, the Police reached at
the spot and thereafter, the injured persons as well as the petitioner
came to the Police Station, and both the parties made a complaint
##PAGE2##[2026:RJ-JP:19905] (2 of 4) [CRLR-885/2022]
against each others. Upon noticing the aggressive behaviour of the
petitioner and finding the act of the petitioner covered under Section
151 Cr.P.C, he was detained. Subsequently, the proceedings under
Sections 107 & 151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that
both the ld. Courts below have passed the impugned orders
mechanically & without due application of judicial mind. Counsel further
submitted that the aforesaid orders have been passed on cyclo-styled
proformas merely by filling-in the blanks space. Counsel also submitted
that even the notice issued under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. does not
disclose the substance of the information or the satisfaction of the ld.
Magistrate, which is a sine-qua-non for initiation of proceedings under
Section 107 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be
quashed & set aside.
In support of his submissions, ld. counsel appearing for the
petitioner, has placed reliance upon the following judgments:- (i) Balraj
Madhok Vs. Union of India, AIR 1967 Delhi 31, (ii) Madhu Limaye &
Anr. Vs. Ved Murti & Ors., AIR 1971 SC 2481, (iii) Kailash Singh & Ors.
Vs. State of Bihar, 1983 CRI.L.J. NOC 228 (PAT.), (iv) Babulal & Anr.
Vs. State of M.P., 1991 CRI.L.J. 786, (v) Dinesh Kumar Tailor Vs. State
of Rajasthan, RLW 1998 (2) Raj. and (vi) Pramod Kumar Shahi @
Mantoo Shahi Vs. State of U.P., 2022 CRI. L.J. 3643.
Learned Public Prosecutor for the State, while opposing the
aforesaid submissions, contended that there is no illegality or infirmity
in the impugned orders passed by the ld. Courts below warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction.
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the
impugned orders as well as the material made available on record.
##PAGE3##[2026:RJ-JP:19905] (3 of 4) [CRLR-885/2022]
In the present matter, the proceedings under Sections 107 &
151 Cr.P.C. were initiated against the petitioner and he was detained
under Section 151 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, vide order dt.22.02.2022 he was
directed to maintain peace & tranquility for a period of six months and
to furnish a personal bond & surety under Section 117 Cr.P.C. The
appeal preferred against the aforesaid order was also dismissed vide
order dt.31.05.2022.
It would be appropriate to refer here that the proceedings
under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. can
