Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vijay Purshottam Salvi @ Tambat, Sanjay Govind Naidu, and Shivaji Ravindra Kumbhar, filed three separate criminal writ petitions challenging the legality and validity of Chapter Case Nos. 3 of 2013, 4 of 2013, and 14 of 2013 respectively, initiated against them by the Special Executive Magistrate, Samta Nagar Division, Kandivali (East), Mumbai, under Section 110(e) and (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The common question of law raised was whether the mandatory requirements of law had been followed by the respondent No.2 in initiating these proceedings. The petitioners argued that under Section 113 read with Section 114 CrPC, whenever an action is proposed under Sections 107, 108, 109, or 110 CrPC, it is necessary to record a separate order setting forth the substance of the information received, the amount of the bond to be executed, the term for which it is to be done, and the number, character, and class of sureties (if any). Additionally, a copy of this order must be furnished to the person through whom the show cause notice is ordered. The petitioners contended that both these requirements were not fulfilled in any of the cases, rendering the proceedings illegal. The State, represented by the learned APP, did not dispute the non-compliance. The court, after hearing both sides and examining the petitions and documents, including the affidavits in reply, found that the mandatory requirements had indeed not been followed. The court held that the failure to record a separate order and furnish its copy to the petitioners vitiated the entire chapter proceedings. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions and quashed and set aside the chapter proceedings in all three cases.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Chapter Proceedings - Section 110(e) and (g) read with Sections 113 and 114 CrPC - Mandatory Requirements - Initiation of proceedings under Sections 107, 108, 109, or 110 CrPC requires a separate order setting forth the substance of information, bond amount, term, and surety details, and a copy of such order must be furnished to the person proceeded against - Non-compliance renders the proceedings illegal and void - Held that the failure to record a separate order and furnish its copy vitiates the entire proceedings (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the chapter proceedings initiated under Section 110(e) and (g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are illegal and bad in law for non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 113 read with Section 114 CrPC?
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions and quashed and set aside the chapter proceedings in all three cases.
Law Points
- Mandatory requirements under Section 113 read with Section 114 CrPC
- Separate order recording substance of information
- bond amount
- term
- and surety details
- Furnishing copy of order to the person proceeded against
- Non-compliance renders proceedings illegal and void
