S.107 CrPC Invocable Only For Threat To Public Peace, Not Over Individual Fear: Patna High Court Quashes Preventive Proceedings
The Patna High Court has held that proceedings under Section 107 CrPC can be initiated only where there are allegations of overt acts likely to lead to breach of public peace affecting the public at large, and not merely because some individuals claim to be living under fear due to threats.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jitendra Kumar was hearing a criminal writ petition seeking quashing of proceedings initiated under Section 107 CrPC against the petitioner in Case No. 437 of 2021.
The proceedings had been initiated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, on the basis of a letter issued by the Assistant District Supply Officer alleging that the petitioner harassed PDS dealers, demanded money from them, and threatened to implicate them in false cases upon non-payment.
Pursuant to the said complaint, the Executive Magistrate initiated proceedings under Section 107 CrPC and directed the petitioner to show cause why he should not execute a bond of Rs. 1,00,000 with two sureties for maintaining peace for one year. The petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and submitted that the complaint was false and malicious, contending that it had been made because he had filed RTI applications against officials of the Supply Department. Upon conclusion of proceedings, the Magistrate directed the petitioner to execute the bond.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that initiation of proceedings under Section 107 CrPC was wholly unwarranted and beyond the jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate. The State argued that since the proceedings had already concluded and the bond period had expired, the writ petition had become infructuous.
The Court, however, held that in view of the importance of the legal issue involved, the matter required adjudication on merits to clarify the scope of powers under Section 107 CrPC.
Analysing the statutory framework, the Court observed that Section 107 CrPC forms part of Chapter VIII of the Code, which deals with preventive measures for maintaining peace and good behaviour, and that the jurisdiction conferred thereunder is preventive—not punitive—in nature.
The Court held that where substantive offences are alleged to have been committed, the proper course is regular prosecution and not invocation of preventive jurisdiction under Section 107. It further emphasised that public peace under Section 107 refers to disturbance affecting society at large, and not disputes confined to a few individuals. The Court noted:
Where substantive offence is committed by a person, the proper procedure is to institute regular prosecution against the persons committing the offence and not to initiate proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC. In Brahmdeo Singh Vs. State of Bihar as reported in 1979 SCC OnLine Pat 172, proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC was initiated against the Petitioner on account of assault that had taken place between the parties on account of enmity which existed between them and one police case was instituted in that connection and the Magistrate was satisfied from the police report that at any time rioting or any other unpleasant incident could take place between the parties, though there was no allegation of any additional overt-act on the part of the parties giving apprehension of breach of peace. Here, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court long back in 1979 held that initiation of the proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC was highly improper, because the person who had allegedly committed assault was being prosecuted and there was no allegation of additional overt-act on his part
On facts, the Court found that at best, the allegations against the petitioner disclosed commission of substantive offences, for which prosecution could have been launched, but no material existed to justify apprehension of breach of public peace.
Holding that the Executive Magistrate had exceeded jurisdiction, the Court observed that the initiation of proceedings under Section 107 CrPC amounted to an unjustified curtailment of personal liberty. The Court further held:
“For application of the provisions under Section 107 Cr.PC, there must be allegation of overt-act which may lead to breach of public peace affecting the public at large. Only on account of the fear under which some individuals may be living due to threat being extended by the petitioner does not mean that would lead to breach of public peace.”
The Court also noted:
“Initiation of proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC against the petitioner is nothing but infringement/curtailment of fundamental right of liberty of the petitioner as granted and granting by the Constitution under Article 21. The life and liberty of a citizen cannot be allowed to be curtailed or restricted in a manner as done by the Executive Magistrate. Therefore, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is duty bound to entertain the writ petition and quash the proceeding.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the entire proceedings initiated under Section 107 CrPC.
Case Title: Lalan Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar and Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1119 of 2021.
Appearance: Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh appeared for the Petitioner. Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha appeared for the Respondent.