Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Revisionability of Orders under Section 107 and 116 of CrPC Orders passed under Sections 107 and 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) are generally considered revisionable, but this depends on the nature of the order. For instance, orders that are conclusive and final, such as those under Section 107(1) or (2), are typically revisionable. However, reports submitted under these sections (e.g., by police officers) are not orders but are merely procedural reports, and thus, their non-disclosure does not impede proceedings or render orders non-revisionable ["NEERAJ SINGH ADHIKARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"], ["Neeraj Singh Adhikari VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].
Specific Case Examples
The Supreme Court has recognized that even if an order is technically revisionable, certain procedural steps or reports (not being orders) do not preclude revisional jurisdiction ["NEERAJ SINGH ADHIKARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"].
Legal Principles and Judicial View
Analysis and ConclusionOrders issued under Section 107 and 116 of CrPC are revisionable if they are final, conclusive, and operative orders. Reports or procedural documents submitted under these sections, which are not final orders, do not hinder the revision process nor are they considered non-revisionable. The key factor is whether the order is conclusive and operative; if so, it remains subject to revision. Therefore, orders under 107 and 116 are generally revisionable, provided they meet the criteria of being final and operative ["NEERAJ SINGH ADHIKARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand"], ["Neeraj Singh Adhikari VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand"].
References:- DHARAM DAS vs STATE AND ANR- Neeraj Singh Adhikari VS State of Uttarakhand - Uttarakhand- NEERAJ SINGH ADHIKARI vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - Uttarakhand
In the realm of preventive justice under the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), Sections 107 and 116 play a crucial role in maintaining public peace. But a common query arises: Is an order under 107 116 revisionable? This question often puzzles litigants facing executive orders for bonds or good behavior. This blog post delves into the legal position, drawing from established principles and precedents to provide clarity.
While orders under these sections are typically interlocutory, their challenge via revision under Section 115 CPC (or analogous provisions) is restricted. We'll explore why, with exceptions, and practical insights.
Section 107 CrPC empowers Executive Magistrates to require bonds for keeping the peace when there's a likelihood of breach. Proceedings culminate in orders under Section 116, which may demand security bonds for good behavior Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
These are preventive measures, not trials on guilt. As noted, Orders under Sections 107 and 116 of the CrPC are primarily interlocutory in nature, dealing with maintenance of peace and order, or requiring bonds for good behavior or peacekeeping. They are not final judgments on the merits of a case Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002)Katuri Venkateswara Rao VS Savera Laboratories Limited - Andhra Pradesh (1991).
Revisional powers under Section 115 CPC are narrow, targeting 'cases decided' causing failure of justice or irreparable injury. Interlocutory orders generally fall outside this scope, especially post-1976 amendments restricting revisions unless grave harm ensues LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Katuri Venkateswara Rao VS Savera Laboratories Limited - Andhra Pradesh (1991)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC (and analogous provisions) is limited, especially concerning interlocutory orders, which are generally not revisable unless they cause failure of justice or irreparable injury LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Katuri Venkateswara Rao VS Savera Laboratories Limited - Andhra Pradesh (1991)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
Thus, orders under Sections 107/116 are typically not 'cases decided,' rendering revisions non-maintainable LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Katuri Venkateswara Rao VS Savera Laboratories Limited - Andhra Pradesh (1991)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
Judicial precedents reinforce this stance:
Interlocutory Nature Confirmed: Courts hold that Orders passed in proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 are typically considered interlocutory and not cases decided within the meaning of Section 115 CPC, thus rendering them generally not revisable LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Katuri Venkateswara Rao VS Savera Laboratories Limited - Andhra Pradesh (1991)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
1976 Amendments Impact: These explicitly bar revisions against interlocutory orders absent failure of justice or irreparable injury LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
In one instance involving potential 107/116 initiation, the court noted proceedings under these sections as preventive, not punitive, underscoring their interim character Kabita Mukharjee VS Pinky Mookarjee and Others - 2012 Supreme(All) 1694. Similarly, in a Panchayat removal case, reference to 107/116 proceedings was deemed otiose absent moral turpitude convictions, highlighting their non-final status MAHAK SINGH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - 1999 Supreme(All) 480.
While generally non-revisionable, exceptions exist:
Failure of Justice or Irreparable Injury: Revisions are permissible if the order meets this 'high threshold.' Not automatic for 107/116 orders LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
Exceptional Circumstances: Orders not final, like bond directives, evade revision unless justice demands otherwise Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
Other judgments illustrate broader revision contexts but align with caution for interlocutory matters. For example, cognizance orders are revisionable if judicial mind application is absent Vinod VS State of Rajasthan - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 2770Vinod VS State of Rajasthan - 2006 Supreme(Raj) 378, but 107/116 orders rarely qualify similarly due to their preventive essence.
In fraud-related property disputes, revisions under specific acts were scrutinized, but fraud vitiates orders generally—yet preventive orders under CrPC demand clean hands too Kabita Mukharjee VS Pinky Mookarjee and Others - 2012 Supreme(All) 1694.
Comparative cases provide context:
Non-Revisionable Orders: An impugned order under a distribution control rule was revisionable per specific rules, unlike general CrPC limits Sonelal Sah vs The State of Bihar.
Criminal Revisions: Orders on 156(3) complaints aren't always revisionable, mirroring interlocutory bars M.V.Jeyraj vs Panchamirtham.
Revenue and Panchayat Orders: Some are appealable/revisionable under domain rules, but CrPC preventive orders follow stricter norms BHORAM DEV MACHUA SAMITY MARYADIT vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARHDHARAMVIR Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS.
Maintenance Orders: Under Section 125 CrPC, these are revisionable, contrasting 107/116 G.John Peter vs Punitha - 2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 17983.
These highlight that revisionability hinges on statute and order nature—interlocutory preventive ones like 107/116 face hurdles.
Facing such an order?
Primary Route: Revision petitions are typically not maintainable unless exceptional harm proven LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
Alternatives:
Quashing: Section 482 CrPC for inherent powers if abuse evident.
Best Practice: Demonstrate irreparable injury with evidence; otherwise, exhaust alternatives. Courts emphasize, For strategic purposes, consider challenging such orders through appeal if applicable, rather than revision, unless specific exceptional circumstances are present.
Key Takeaway: Orders under Sections 107 and 116 CrPC are generally not revisionable, as they are interlocutory and outside Section 115 CPC scope unless causing grave injustice or irreparable harm LALIT MOHAN SRIVASTAVA VS DISTRICT JUDGE, AMBEDKAR NAGAR - Allahabad (2007)Kamla Devi VS Hari Ram - Rajasthan (2002).
This post offers general insights based on precedents and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for case-specific guidance, as outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction.
Stay informed on criminal procedure—subscribe for more legal updates!
#CrPC107 #LegalRevision #CriminalProcedure
The impugned appellate order is revisionable, under Rule 32(V) of the Bihar Targeted Public Distribution System Constitution of India, has been preferred against the order dated (Control) Order, 2016, accordingly, the writ petition, filed on within a period of two months from the date of filing of revision Collector, Sitamarhi, (respondent no.2), dismissing the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner affirmi....
Moreover, since the impugned order is not a revisionable one, the present criminal revision is not complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. ... On perusing the complaint and other materials available, the impugned Crl.M.P.No.1751 of 2022 dated 12.07.2022 on the file of the learned Judicial This Criminal Revision has been filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order
Further referring to Rule 5 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayats (Appeal and Revision) Rules, 1995, it is submitted that an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Ofcer is revisionable. ... Looking to the above submissions made by Counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 02.03.2021 (annexure P/1) passed by the Collector, Kabirdham is hereby quashed. ... Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order date....
Under the Code of Criminal Procedure, Criminal Revision is filed against the revisionable order and against the order of Criminal Appeal. The maintenance order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., is revisionable order. The same is not appealable order. ... (MD)SRNo.32110 of 2023 to set aside the above order of granting of maintenance. ... As held above,....
The provision of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, also provides that the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collectors and other Revenue Officers are appealable and revisionable. ... Challenge is to the order dated 08.07.2021 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Tehsildar, Jagadhri, whereby attachment has been made on account of recovery proceedings for dues of Rs.83,39,159
For R1 & R2 Mr.S.Saji Bino, Standing Counsel for Trichy Corporation for R3 & R4 COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court ... Admittedly, the impugned notices are either appealable or revisionable. In such view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain these writ petitions and the petitioners are at liberty to exhaust the statutory/alternative remedy. ... +1 CC to M/s.SPL GP ( SR-14331[F] dated 30/03/2021 ) +1 CC to....
But it transpires that the decision taken under section 41(5) of the Act of 1935, is not appealable rather appealable order is under section 41(1) and 41(2) of the Act of 1935. In this view of the matter, the order of appointing the Administrator is revisionable order in opinion of the Court. ... Counsel for the State submits that there is a time prescribed for 6 months challenging the order before the re....
Hon’ble Supreme Court has propounded that in certain circumstances even if the case is revisionable ... Yet, the accused, in order to cheat the complainant, dispatched below standard challenging the legality, correctness and propriety of the order taking cognizance before the Sessions Court Vide order dated Additional Sessions Judge, Jaitaran vide order dated 30.11.2016 ....
Thus, non-disclosure of the said report, which is not a conclusive order under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC, will have no bearing nor will it create any impediment, as such, in drawing the proceedings under Section 156 (3) of the CrPC. ... whom the proceedings under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC have been drawn. ... ), in fact, this document its not an order#....
which the report was submitted by the Sub Inspector (Annexure 3 to the C482 Application), in fact, this document its not an order under Section 107 or Section 116 of CrPC, but it is rather only a report which has been ... Thus, non-disclosure of the said report, which is not a conclusive order under Section 107 to be read with Section 116 of CrPC, will have no bearing nor wil....
34. Mr. Ghoshal, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant/opposite party/present landlord, on the contrary, submits that by the order impugned the interim order was extended. Therefore, the order impugned is not a revisionable order but is an appealable order.
City Magistrate-II had to pass an order on 3.11.2006 under Section 111/112 read with 107/116 Cr.P.C. as to why proceedings under Section 107/116 be not initiated for maintaining peace. This led to a situation of breach of peace and law and order whereupon the Addl. Copy of the said notice is Annexure 5 to writ petition which was issued to respondents no.
Hence, while disagreeing with the negative Final Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate should give reasons for his disagreeing with the negative Final Report. Since, the Sessions Court or the High Court is legally bound to examine the validity of the cognizance order, it is essential that the application of the judicial mind should be clearly revealed in the order itself. 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that a cognizance order is a revisionable order.
Since, the Sessions Court or the High Court is legally bound to examine the validity of the cognizance order, it is essential that the application of the judicial mind should be clearly revealed in the order itself . 6. It is, indeed, trite to state that a cognizance order is a revisionable order. Hence, while disagreeing with the negative Final Report, the learned Judicial Magistrate should give reasons for his
It is therefore, an admitted fact that after the petitioner assumed office of Pradhan, no criminal case was registered against him and he was thus not accused of any offence, much less, involving moral turpitude. Therefore, a reference to the proceedings under section 107/116, Cr. P. C. is otiose. It was pointed out that the petitioner had to his credit at least three criminal cases, the details of which are given in the chargesheet. Cr. P. C. are by way of preventive measure....
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
