Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Sandeep Shivaji Mhatre, Tushar Bhimsen Saigaokar, and Nilesh @ Sonu Mahanand Jadhav, filed three separate criminal writ petitions challenging notices dated 05.03.2014 issued under Section 111 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) and the subsequent order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, Agripada Division, Mumbai, initiating proceedings under Section 107 CrPC. The notices were based on a single criminal case, C.R. No.250 of 2013, registered under Sections 324, 323, 403 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) at Byculla Police Station. The Magistrate proceeded on the footing that the petitioners were likely to repeat such offences and cause disturbance to public peace and tranquility. The petitioners were called upon to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute bonds of Rs.1,000/- with three sureties in the like amount for keeping the peace for one year. The petitioners filed replies refuting the allegations and prayed for dropping of the proceedings, but the Magistrate rejected their contentions and passed the order dated 25.03.2014. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The main legal issue was whether the initiation of proceedings under Section 107 CrPC based solely on a single FIR, without any independent material indicating a likelihood of breach of peace, was legally sustainable. The petitioners argued that the mere registration of a criminal case cannot form the basis for preventive proceedings under Section 107 CrPC, as the provision requires credible information and a reasonable apprehension of future breach of peace. The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, supported the Magistrate's order. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 107 and 111 CrPC and held that the jurisdiction under Section 107 is preventive and not punitive. The court observed that the notice under Section 111 CrPC must contain the substance of the information received, not merely a reference to the FIR. The court found that the notices in question merely referred to the FIR without disclosing any independent material to show that the petitioners were likely to commit a breach of peace. The court concluded that the mere registration of a criminal case does not by itself constitute material to infer that the person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility. Accordingly, the court quashed the notices dated 05.03.2014 and the order dated 25.03.2014, and allowed the petitions.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Preventive Proceedings - Section 107 CrPC - Show Cause Notice - Initiation of proceedings under Section 107 CrPC based solely on registration of a single FIR is not sustainable - The court held that the mere registration of a criminal case does not by itself constitute material to infer that the person is likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility - The Magistrate must have independent material to form an opinion that there is likelihood of breach of peace (Paras 5-8). B) Criminal Procedure Code - Notice under Section 111 CrPC - Contents of Notice - The notice under Section 111 CrPC must contain the substance of the information received, not merely a reference to the FIR - The court held that the notice must set forth the substance of the information to enable the person to show cause effectively - A notice that merely refers to an FIR without disclosing the grounds of apprehension is defective (Paras 5-8). C) Criminal Procedure Code - Preventive Jurisdiction - Scope - The jurisdiction under Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not punitive - The court held that the object of Section 107 is to prevent future breach of peace and not to punish for past offences - The proceedings must be based on credible information indicating a real likelihood of disturbance of public peace (Paras 5-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether initiation of proceedings under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) based solely on a single criminal case (FIR) without any independent material indicating likelihood of breach of peace is legally sustainable.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petitions, quashed the notices dated 05.03.2014 and the order dated 25.03.2014 passed by the Special Executive Magistrate, and discharged the petitioners from the obligation to execute bonds.
Law Points
- Section 107 CrPC requires independent material showing likelihood of breach of peace
- not mere registration of FIR
- Single criminal case cannot form basis for preventive proceedings
- Show cause notice under Section 111 CrPC must contain substance of information
- not just reference to FIR
- Preventive action under Chapter VIII CrPC is not punitive but based on future apprehension
