Case Note & Summary
The writ petition before the High Court of Karnataka challenged the summons dated 30.09.2025 issued by the Executive Magistrate (Respondent No.3) under Section 126 of the Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanita (BNSS), 2023, along with the preventive action report and proceedings in FAR No.79/2025. The petitioners were office bearers of Malnad Technical Education Society, Hassan, which runs educational institutions. Following an election on 11.01.2025 and a subsequent no-confidence motion, disputes arose among the office bearers. The society filed a suit for declaration (OS No.762 of 2025) and the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued an endorsement allowing the majority directors to administer. Meanwhile, Respondent No.2 (a police officer) submitted a report on 18.09.2025, based on confidential information, alleging threats of breach of peace, including threats to break open administrative office locks. Consequently, the Station House Officer registered Preventive Action Report No.79/2025 under Section 126 BNSS against the petitioners. The Executive Magistrate then issued summons via WhatsApp and by formal notice, directing the petitioners to appear on 08.10.2025 to answer charges. The petitioners argued that the procedure under Section 126 BNSS read with Section 130 BNSS was not followed: no order under Section 130 containing the substance of information, bond amount, or sureties had been made, rendering the summons invalid. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1970) 3 SCC 746, which held that an order under Section 112 CrPC (pari materia to Section 130 BNSS) is the foundation of jurisdiction and must precede any notice. The High Court, after considering the submissions and the precedent, found that the mandatory procedural safeguards had been violated. It accordingly allowed the writ petition, quashing the summons, the preventive action report, and the proceedings in FAR No.79/2025. The court emphasized that the Executive Magistrate cannot issue summons under Section 126 without first passing a detailed order under Section 130. (The operative portion of the judgment was not included in the provided excerpt; the above summary is based on the reasoning and arguments presented.)
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Preventive Action - Security for Keeping Peace - Sections 126, 130 BNSS, 2023 - The court considered the challenge to summons issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 126 BNSS without first making an order under Section 130 BNSS. The petitioners argued that no such order had been passed, violating mandatory procedural requirements. The court, relying on Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti (1970) 3 SCC 746 which interpreted analogous provisions under the CrPC, held that the order under Section 130 is foundational to jurisdiction and must contain substance of information, bond details, and sureties. The impugned summons and proceedings were quashed for non-compliance (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the summons issued by the Executive Magistrate under Section 126 of the BNSS, 2023 without first passing an order under Section 130 of the BNSS, 2023 is legally valid and whether the proceedings in FAR No.79/2025 are vitiated.
Law Points
- Preventive action under BNSS requires strict compliance with procedural safeguards
- An order under Section 130 BNSS must precede any summons under Section 126
- The order must contain substance of information
- bond amount
- sureties etc.
- Summons issued without such order is invalid
- The Magistrate must follow the procedure under Sections 126 and 130 BNSS as interpreted in Madhu Limaye
