Madras High Court
Dhinesh vs The Ii Class Executive Magistrate And on 3 January, 2025
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 29.10.2024 & 30.10.2024
Pronounced on : 03.01.2025
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.MURALI SHANKAR
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018,
14638, 15206, 15209, 15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472,
17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.9519, 8098, 8676, 9137, 9514, 9515,
9520, 9584, 9796, 9801, 10784, 10864, 10919, 10920,
10938, 11026 and 11635 of 2024
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024
Dhinesh ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate and
Tahsildar,
Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Revision Petition filed under Sections 438 and 442
1/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
BNSS, to call for records relating to the proceedings in M.C.No.57/2024
dated 16.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.Venkatesh
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13186 of 2024
Janarthanan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate cum
Thasildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
G-4, Nainarkovil Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for records relating to the summon in M.C.No.70/2024 passed by the
first respondent dated 13.03.2024 and quash the same and allow this
petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Praveenkumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
2/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14018 of 2024
Shanmuganathan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate and
Tahsildar,
Office of Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram Taluk & District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records relating to the impugned summon in M.C.No.376/4607
of 2024 dated 08.08.2024 issued by the first respondent and quash the
same as illegal, improper, unlawful and arbitrary.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Murugan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2024
Prabhakaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
3/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate and
Tahsildar,
Office of Tahsildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Nainarkovil Police Station,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records relating to the impugned summon in M.C.No.251 of
2024 dated 09.08.2024 issued by the first respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.Rama Moorthi
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15206 of 2024
Ravichandran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate cum
Thasildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
4/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for records relating to the summon in M.C.No.(A3)/429/5366 of 2024
passed by the first respondent dated 28.08.2024 and quash the same and
allow this petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.Susikumar
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15209 of 2024
Hariharan ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate and
Tashildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sathirakudi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the entire records of the proceedings initiated by first respondent
in M.C.No.264 of 2024 dated 21.08.2024 and quash the said proceedings
as against the petitioner.
5/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15222 of 2024
Asokan @ Ashokumar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate cum
Tahsildar,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kaliyakkavilai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(LIR No.33 of 2024) ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records on the file of the first respondent pertinent to his
impugned notice in Case No.AA3/MC/110/2024 dated 03.09.2024 and to
quash the same as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.C.Herold Singh
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
6/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15297 of 2024
Nallu @ Lalluprasath ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate and
Tashildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sathirakudi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the entire records of the proceedings initiated by first respondent
in M.C.No.268 of 2024 dated 21.08.2024 and quash the said proceedings
as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15625 of 2024
Mayandi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
7/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
2.The Inspector of Police,
Morrapanadu Police Station,
Thoothukudi District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records of impugned show cause notice issued by the first
respondent vide A1/BNSS.129/209/2024 dated 19.08.2024 and quash the
same as illegal, arbitrary and non-application of mind.
For Petitioner : Mr.V.Angusamy
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17246 of 2024
Jeeva ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate/Tahsildhar,
O/o.Second Class Executive Magistrate/Thasildhar,
Rameshwaram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Pamban Police Station,
Rameshwaram,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records in connection with the impugned proceedings in
8/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
M.C.No.55/2024 (A4/3232/2024) dated 25.09.2024 on the file of the first
respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Navaneetharaja
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17472 of 2024
Rajendran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate/Revenue Tahsildar,
Thirupathur,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupathur Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
3.Senthilkumar
4.Chandran
5.Karthi
6.Sundari
7.Kisore Kumar
8.Madhubalan
9/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
9.Senthilnathan
10.Kodeeswaran
11.Muthukumar
12.Ananthi ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records pertaining to the impugned summon issued by the first
respondent herein in his proceedings in M.C.No.3/2024 dated 19.09.2024
and quash the same in so for as above petitioner is concerned.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Hari Haran
For R1 & R2 : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2024
Samraj ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate/
The Revenue Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk Office,
Tenkasi District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station,
Tenkasi District. ... Respondents
10/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records pursuant to the impugned summon passed by the first
respondent in M.C.No.A1/588/2024 under Section 107 r/w 111 Cr.P.C.
dated 18.09.2024 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Veerapandi
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17535 of 2024
Ravichandran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Executive Magistrate/
The Tahsildar,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kallal Police Station,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for records relating to the impugned notice dated 01.04.2024 in
M.C.No.22 of 2024 issued by the first respondent and quash the same as
illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohan
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
11/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17856 of 2024
Prasath ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate and
Tashildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Bogalur Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the entire records of the proceedings initiated by first respondent
in M.C.No.265 of 2024 dated 21.08.2024 and quash the said proceedings
as against the petitioner.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.L.Dhilipan Pandian
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18760 of 2024
Fatinson ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Second Class Executive Magistrate cum
Tahshildar,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
12/38
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District. ... Respondents
Prayer : This Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 528 BNSS, to
call for the records related to the impugned summon in M.C.No.
(A3)480/6262/2024 dated not mentioned of October 2024 ( .10.2024)
issued by the first respondent and quash the same as illegal.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Babu Jaganath
For Respondents : Mr.E.Antony Sahaya Prabahar
Additional Public Prosecutor
COMMON ORDER
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024 - This Criminal Revision Petition is
directed against the proceedings in M.C.No.57 of 2024 dated 16.08.2024
on the file of the first respondent under Sections 136 BNSS r/w 129
BNSS, consequent to the requisition made in LIR No.32 of 2024 dated
06.08.2024 by the second respondent for initiating action under Section
129 BNSS.
2. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13186 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.70 of 2024 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
13.03.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the requisition
made in LIR No.15 of 2024 dated 03.03.2024 by the second respondent
for initiating action under Section 110 CrPC.
3. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14018 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.(A3)376/4607/2024
dated 08.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the
letter dated 08.08.2024 sent by the second respondent for initiating action
under Section 129 BNSS.
4. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14638 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.251 of 2024 dated
09.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the requisition
made in LIR No.53 of 2024 dated 28.06.2024 by the second respondent
for initiating action under Section 129 BNSS.
5. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15206 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.(A3)429/5366/2024
dated 28.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
letter dated 27.08.2024 sent by the second respondent for initiating action
under Section 129 BNSS.
6. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15209 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.264 of 2024 dated
21.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the requisition
made in LIR No.12 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024 by the second respondent
for initiating action under Section 129 BNSS.
7. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15222 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in Case No.A3/MC/110/2024 dated
03.09.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the requisition
made in LIR No.33 of 2024 by the second respondent for initiating action
under Section 129 BNSS.
8. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15297 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.268 of 2024 dated
21.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the requisition
made in LIR No.16 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024 by the second respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
for initiating action under Section 129 BNSS.
9. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15625 of 2024 - This Criminal Original Petition
is directed against the show cause notice issued in A1/BNSS.129/209/
2024 dated 19.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent for initiating
action under Section 129 BNSS.
10. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17246 of 2024 - This Criminal Original
Petition is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.55 of 2024
dated 25.09.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the
requisition made in LIR No.21 of 2024 by the second respondent for
initiating action under Section 128 BNSS.
11. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17472 of 2024 - This Criminal Original
Petition is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.03 of 2024
dated 19.09.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the
letter sent by the second respondent for initiating action under Section 126
BNSS.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
12. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17514 of 2024 - This Criminal Original
Petition is directed against the enquiry notice issued in M.C.No.A1/558/
2024 dated 18.09.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to
the requisition made in LIR No.17 of 2024 dated 01.04.2024 by the
second respondent for initiating action under Section 107 CrPC.
13. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17535 of 2024 - This Criminal Original
Petition is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.22 of 2024
dated 01.04.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the
letter sent by the second respondent for initiating action under Section 117
CrPC.
14. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.17856 of 2024 - This Criminal Original
Petition is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.265 of 2024
dated 21.08.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent to the
requisition made in LIR No.13 of 2024 dated 13.08.2024 by the second
respondent for initiating action under Section 129 BNSS.
15. Crl.O.P.(MD)No.18760 of 2024 - This Criminal Original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Petition is directed against the summons issued in M.C.No.(A3)480/
6262/2024 dated 07.10.2024 on the file of the first respondent, consequent
to the letter dated .10.2024 sent by the second respondent for initiating
action under Section 129 BNSS.
16. Chapter VIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure covers Sections
106 to 124 CrPC (Chapter IX of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita -
Sections 125 to 143 BNSS), which deal with security for keeping the
peace and for good behaviour. Section 125 BNSS (106 CrPC) applies to
convicted offenders, who are a danger to the public. Section 126 BNSS
(107 CrPC) applies to cases other than those covered by Section 125
BNSS (106 CrPC) and is for taking security to keep the peace. Section 127
BNSS (108 CrPC) applies to persons who spread seditious matters and
whereas, Section 128 BNSS (109 CrPC) applies to suspected persons.
Section 129 BNSS (110 CrPC) applies to habitual offenders. Sections 130
to 143 BNSS (111 to 124 CrPC) set out the procedures to be followed in
the above cases.
17. The gist of the above Chapter is the prevention of crimes and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
disturbances that might breach public peace and that these provisions are
not for the acts that are done openly but regarding an act that has the
potential to cause danger to the peace of society.
18. Section 126 BNSS which corresponds to Section 107 CrPC
contemplates that when an Executive Magistrate gets information from a
trustable source about a person who is suspected to breach the peace of the
public, disturbing public tranquility, causing danger to public harmony, or
committing any sort of wrongful act, then on sufficient ground and
evidence, the Magistrate can call upon that person and then he would be
asked the reasons of why he should not be compelled to agree with the
bond (with or without surety) for maintaining peace for a required period
of time of not more than a year, but for a time period said by the
Magistrate as he thinks fit for the current prevailing situation in his
jurisdiction.
19. Section 126(2) BNSS (107(2) CrPC) states that the proceedings
for such person can be taken before any Executive Magistrate who has
jurisdiction over the place where the breach of peace or disturbance is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
likely to occur or the person who is accused of committing a wrongful act
of causing the breach of peace, disturbing public tranquility falls under his
jurisdiction.
20. It is pertinent to note that before taking any action against the
accused person, the Magistrate shall be satisfied that there are appropriate
and important reasons for taking action against that person before he
breaches the peace and the Magistrate shall record reasons for his
satisfaction.
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Istkar Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh and another reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 1000, while
considering the scope and nature of Section 107 CrPC, has observed that
Section 107 CrPC aims at ensuring that there be no breach of peace and
the public tranquility be not disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act and
the action being preventive in nature is not based on any overt act but is
intended to forestall the potential danger to serve the interests of public at
large and the relevant passages are extracted hereunder:-
“11. As noticed, the scope and nature of Section 107
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
CrPC is preventive and not punitive. It aims at ensuring
that there be no breach of peace and that the public
tranquillity be not disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act.
The action being preventive in nature is not based on any
overt act but is intended to forestall the potential danger to
serve the interests of public at large. In other words, this
provision is in aid of orderly society and seeks to avert any
conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquillity.
The provision authorises the Magistrate to initiate
proceedings against a person if upon information, he is
satisfied that such person is either likely to commit breach
of peace or disturb public tranquillity or is likely to
commit any wrongful act that might probably produce the
same result. Simply stated, the provisions of Chapter VIII
of the Code are merely preventive in nature and are not to
be used as a vehicle for punishment.
12. Moreover, the object of furnishing security
and/or executing a bond under Chapter VIII of the Code is
not to augment the state exchequer but to avoid any
possible breach of peace for maintaining public peace and
tranquillity. It is also explicitly stipulated under Proviso
(b) to Section 117 that the amount of bond shall be fixed
with due regard to the circumstances of the case and shall
not be excessive. ...”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
22. It is also necessary to refer the judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in M.Krishnamurthy Vs. The Sub Divisional Magistrate
cum Revenue Divisional Officer, Krishnagiri and another reported in
(2017) 1 CTC 680 and the relevant passage is extracted hereunder:-
“19. In our view, a show cause order under Section
107 r/w 111 can be subjected to judicial review under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, if on the face of it, the order does not satisfy the
minimum requirements of Section 111 or that the same has
been passed by a person who is not an Executive
Magistrate and not otherwise. In other words, if the order
does not contain the substance of the information received,
the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which
it is to be in force, and the number, character and class of
sureties (if any) required, only then, can the High Court
interfere and not otherwise. Factual adjudication of the
satisfaction expressed by the Magistrate is ruled out in
view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Vicco
Laboratories (supra).”
23. No doubt, the Division Bench, while answering the reference,
has taken a stand that the truth of the information can be tested only in the
enquiry under Section 116 and is not required to be noted in the show
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
cause issued under Section 107 CrPC.
24. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer Section 129
BNSS (110 CrPC);
“129. When an Executive Magistrate receives
information that there is within his local jurisdiction a
person who—
(a) is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief, or
forger; or
(b) is by habit a receiver of stolen property
knowing the same to have been stolen; or
(c) habitually protects or harbours thieves, or
aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen
property; or
(d) habitually commits, or attempts to commit,
or abets the commission of, the offence of kidnapping,
abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any
offence punishable under Chapter X of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, or under section 178, section
179, section 180 or section 181 of that Sanhita; or
(e) habitually commits, or attempts to commit,
or abets the commission of, offences, involving a
breach of the peace; or
(f) habitually commits, or attempts to commit,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
or abets the commission of—
(i) any offence under one or more of the
following Acts, namely:—
(a) the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940;
(b) the Foreigners Act, 1946;
(c) the Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952;
(d) the Essential Commodities Act, 1955;
(e) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955;
(f) the Customs Act, 1962;
(g) the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006; or
(ii) any offence punishable under any
other law providing for the prevention of
hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of
food or drugs or of corruption; or
(g) is so desperate and dangerous as to render his
being at large without security hazardous to the
community, such Magistrate may, in the manner
hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause
why he should not be ordered to execute a bail bond, for
his good behaviour for such period, not exceeding three
years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.”
25. Section 130 BNSS corresponding to Section 111 CrPC reads:-
“130. When a Magistrate acting under section 126,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
section 127, section 128 or section 129, deems it necessary
to require any person to show cause under such section, he
shall make an order in writing, setting forth the substance
of the information received, the amount of the bond to be
executed, the term for which it is to be in force and the
number of sureties, after considering the sufficiency and
fitness of sureties.”
26. It is pertinent to note that Section 111 CrPC is in pari materia
with Section 112 of the 1898 Code. A Full Bench of this Court in In re :
Muthuswami Chettiar and others reported in (1940) 1 MLJ 11, while
considering the scope of the then Section 112 CrPC (111 CrPC) has held
as follows:-
"11.There is no doubt that action taken under
Section 112 constitutes a judicial act and therefore the
Magistrate should not act arbitrarily. There must be
information of a nature which convinces him that there is a
likelihood of a breach of the peace. It is impossible to
formulate a hard and fast rule with regard to the nature of
the information on which a Magistrate should act. What is
reasonably sufficient to satisfy a Magistrate must depend
on the particular situation. The person who gives the
information may not be in a position to give details, but
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
the source of the information may be sufficient to convince
the Magistrate that a breach of the peace is likely, and if
he is convinced the law requires him to take action. We
consider that Knox, J., aptly stated the position in Jaguji
Rai v. Emperor (1918) 16 A.L.J. 567, when he said:
As I read this section, there may be cases in which a
Magistrate of the first class is merely informed that a
person is likely to disturb the public tranquillity
without any information being given as to his intent
to do wrongful acts. The Magistrate is responsible for
the peace of the district. He acts upon this
information and lie is required to set forth in writing
the substance of the information received In this case
we are not told that the Magistrate has received any
information of definite acts intended. Apparently from
the information he received he was satisfied that the
persons concerning whom the information had been
given were likely to commit some act which might
occas on a breach of the peace. The reason given for
this probability was that they were on terms of enmity
with each other. Where the Magistrate can go into
further particulars, he should certainly go into them.
But it may well be that all the information he receives
is that there will be a breach of the public peace, and
if he considers that information to come from a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
reliable source, he has jurisdiction to make the order
required by Section 112.
12. The High Court has undoubtedly power to quash
proceedings where the notice issued does not comply with
the requirements of Section 112, but before doing so it
must be satisfied that there has been a failure to comply. It
must be remembered that the issue of the notice is merely a
preliminary step and no order can be passed under Section
107 unless the inquiry which follows the issue of the notice
shows that the laying of the information was justified. The
High Court can always interfere when the inquiry has not
been held in accordance with the law or a wrong
conclusion has been arrived at. Far too much stress has
been laid in the past on the wording of the notice and too
little regard paid to the safeguards provided by the
subsequent procedure."
27. It is pertinent to note that an order under Section 130 BNSS (111
CrPC) is nothing but a show cause notice calling upon the persons stated
therein to show cause as to why they should not be bound over. No doubt,
an order under Section 130 BNSS (111 CrPC) is only an interlocutory
order, because it does not determine the rights of the parties itself and only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
it is calls upon the party to show cause against proposed action.
28. As already pointed out, the Division Bench has specifically held
that show cause order under Section 107 r/w 111 can be challenged under
Section 482 CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if on the face
of it, the order does not satisfy the minimum requirements of Section 111
or that the same has been passed by a person, who is not an Executive
Magistrate and not otherwise.
29. Considering the above, it is very much clear that the order of the
Executive Magistrate must contain the substance of the information
received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to
be in force and the number, character and class of sureties (if any required)
and that if the order does not disclose any such material aspects, the High
Court can very well interfere with that order.
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Monghyr and others reported in AIR 1971 SC
2486, has explained the words “substance of the amount received” and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
same is extracted hereunder:-
“ ... Since the person to be proceeded against has to
show cause, it is but natural that he must know the
grounds for apprehending a breach of the peace or
disturbance of the public tranquillity at his hands.
Although the section speaks of the 'substance of the
information' it does not mean that the order should not be
full. It may not repeat the information bodily but it must
give proper notice of what has moved the Magistrate to
take the action. This order is the foundation of the
jurisdiction and the word 'substance' means the essence of
the most important parts of the information.”
31. Bearing the above legal position in mind, let us proceed with the
cases on hand. In the revision in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, the
Executive Magistrate in his impugned order has alleged that after issuance
of show cause notice, the petitioner herein was produced before him and
conducted enquiry and thereafter he has come to a conclusion that the
petitioner herein is likely to create breach of peace in the locality and
hence, he was directed to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- without sureties
for a period of one year from 16.08.2024. According to the prosecution,
before passing the impugned order, the Executive Magistrate has issued a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
show cause notice dated 06.08.2024 to show cause why he should not be
directed to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/- for keeping peace and after the
appearance of the petitioner, proper enquiry was conducted and thereafter,
the impugned order came to be passed. The learned Additional Public
Prosecutor would fairly submit that though the petitioner is having two
cases, the same were not at all disclosed either in the show cause notice or
in the impugned order. More importantly, two cases pending against the
petitioner were for the offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and
as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
and as rightly conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the
offences under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act are not covered under
Section 129 BNSS (110 CrPC). No doubt, though the impugned order
contains the amount of bond to be executed, term for which it is to be in
force, the same does not contain the substance of the information received.
As already pointed out, neither the show cause notice nor the impugned
order does contain any of the cases pending against the petitioner or the
substance of the information received from the second respondent.
Considering the above and the legal position above referred, this Court has
no hesitation to hold that the impugned order cannot legally be sustained
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
and the same is liable to be set aside.
32. In Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15222, 17246 and 17535 of 2024, the
Executive Magistrate has issued the impugned summons to show cause
why they should not be directed to execute a bond for Rs.50,000/-,
directing them to appear on a particular date shown therein and in Crl.O.P.
(MD)No.17472 of 2024, summons came to be issued to show cause why
the petitioner herein should not be directed to execute a bond for
Rs.5,000/- and to appear on 24.09.2024 at 11.30 a.m. In all the other
Criminal Original Petitions, the impugned summons does not contain the
amount of bond to be executed and the term for which it is to be in force
and number and character of sureties if any required.
33. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13186 of 2024, the learned Additional
Public Prosecutor would submit that there were four previous cases
pending against the petitioner herein but the impugned summons does not
refer the same. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14018 of 2024, according to the
prosecution, there were four previous cases pending against the petitioner
herein but the impugned summons does not disclose about the same. In
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.15206, 15209, 15625, 17514 and 17856 of 2024, the
learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the petitioners
herein were having five cases, three cases, two cases, eight cases and three
cases respectively but the impugned summons does not disclose about the
case particulars.
34. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would also admit that
in Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.14638, 15222, 15297, 17246, 17472, 17535 and
18760 of 2024, the impugned summons / show cause notices does not
contain any of the required particulars.
35. In Crl.O.P.(MD)No.15222 of 2024, the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Executive Magistrate
has earlier initiated proceedings under Section 110 CrPC and when the
same was challenged before this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.3462 of 2023,
this Court has passed an order dated 25.07.2023 quashing the impugned
proceedings. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that
the petitioner herein is having two cases one for sand theft and other for
murder but the impugned summons does not disclose any of the case
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
particulars nor the earlier proceedings.
36. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, in some of the cases, before issuance of the impugned
summons under Section 129 BNSS (110 CrPC), no orders under Section
127 BNSS (108 CrPC) came to be passed and no orders under Section 127
BNSS (108 CrPC) came to be served on the petitioners along with the
impugned summons.
37. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would further
submit that in some of the cases before issuing the summons under Section
126 BNSS (107 CrPC), no orders under Section 130 BNSS (111 CrPC)
came to be issued.
38. It is pertinent to note that in case if the person for whom notice
under Section 126 BNSS (107 CrPC) is issued, has not turned up, the
Executive Magistrate has to pass an order under Section 132 BNSS (113
CrPC) for issuance of summons or warrant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
39. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners, in some of the cases before initiating proceedings under
Section 126 BNSS (107 CrPC), show cause orders under Section 130
BNSS (111 CrPC) were not issued. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners, in some of the cases, the first
respondent, without issuing any show cause order under Section 130
BNSS (111 CrPC), has directly issued summons under Section 132 BNSS
(113 CrPC).
40. Considering the above, this Court has no hesitation to hold that
the Executive Magistrate has issued the impugned summons / show cause
notices / orders in violation of the provisions of the Chapter IX BNSS
(Chapter VIII CrPC) and as such, the same are legally unsustainable.
Consequently, this Court concludes that the impugned summons / show
cause notices / orders are liable to be set aside and are set aside
accordingly.
41. In the result, the Criminal Revision Petition and the Criminal
Original Petitions are allowed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Petitions are closed. No costs.
03.01.2025
NCC :yes/No
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
csm
To
1.The II Class Executive Magistrate and
Tahsildar,
Thiruvadanai,
Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Sub Inspector of Police,
Thondi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
3.The II Class Executive Magistrate cum
Thasildar,
Paramakudi,
Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Inspector of Police,
G-4, Nainarkovil Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
5.The Second Class Executive Magistrate and
Tahsildar,
Office of Tahsildar,
Ramanathapuram,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
6.The Inspector of Police,
Devipattinam Police Station,
Ramanathapuram Taluk & District.
7.The Inspector of Police,
Sathirakudi Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
8.The Executive Magistrate cum
Tahsildar,
Vilavancode Taluk,
Kanyakumari District.
9.The Inspector of Police,
Kaliyakkavilai Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
10.The Executive Magistrate cum
Revenue Divisional Officer,
Thoothukudi,
Thoothukudi District.
11.The Inspector of Police,
Morrapanadu Police Station,
Thoothukudi District.
12.The Second Class Executive Magistrate/Tahsildhar,
O/o.Second Class Executive Magistrate/Thasildhar,
Rameshwaram Taluk,
Ramanathapuram.
13.The Inspector of Police,
Pamban Police Station,
Rameshwaram,
Ramanathapuram District.
14.The Executive Magistrate/Revenue Tahsildar,
Thirupathur, Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
15.The Inspector of Police,
Thirupathur Town Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
16.The Second Class Executive Magistrate/
The Revenue Tahsildar,
Sankarankovil Taluk Office,
Tenkasi District.
17.The Inspector of Police,
Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station,
Tenkasi District.
18.The Executive Magistrate/
The Tahsildar,
Karaikudi Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
19.The Inspector of Police,
Kallal Police Station,
Sivagangai District.
20.The Inspector of Police,
Bogalur Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
21.The Inspector of Police,
Kenikkarai Police Station,
Ramanathapuram District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018, 14638, 15206, 15209,
15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472, 17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
K.MURALI SHANKAR,J.
csm
Pre-Delivery Common Order made in
Crl.R.C.(MD)No.864 of 2024, Crl.O.P.(MD)Nos.13186, 14018,
14638, 15206, 15209, 15222, 15297, 15625, 17246, 17472,
17514, 17535,17856 and 18760 of 2024
Dated : 03.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
