Chapter VIII
Section 107 CrPC: Security for keeping the peace in other cases
New Law Update (2024)
Section 112 BNSS
TRIAL COURT
Executive Magistrate
Punishment
Procedural / Administrative
Cognizable?
Bailable?
Compoundable?
Bare Act Text
(1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility and is of opinion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, he may in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond with or without sureties for keeping the peace for such period, not exceeding one year, as the Magistrate thinks fit.
(2) Proceeding under this section may be taken before any Executive Magistrate when either the place where the breach of the peace or disturbance is apprehended is within his local jurisdiction or there is within such jurisdiction a person who is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquility or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.
Important Sub-Sections Explained
Section 107(1)
This fundamental part empowers an Executive Magistrate to issue a show cause notice requiring a person to furnish a bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace for up to one year, if there is information suggesting they are likely to cause a breach of peace or disturb public tranquility. It’s the core provision outlining the grounds and initial action.
Section 107(2)
This crucial sub-section defines the territorial jurisdiction of the Executive Magistrate for initiating proceedings under Section 107. It specifies that the Magistrate can act if the apprehended breach or disturbance is within their local jurisdiction, or if the person likely to commit such an act resides within their jurisdiction, even if the wrongful act might occur elsewhere.
Landmark Judgements
Madhu Limaye v. Ved Murti and Ors. (1970) AIR 1971 SC 2481:
This landmark judgment clarified the scope of Section 107, emphasizing that an Executive Magistrate must have substantial information regarding an actual likelihood of a breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility before initiating proceedings. It held that the section is not meant to curb legitimate political activity or freedom of speech, but to prevent imminent threats to public order based on credible information.
Ram Prasad v. State of U.P. (1970) AIR 1970 All 303:
The Allahabad High Court ruled that the satisfaction of the Executive Magistrate regarding the likelihood of a breach of peace must be based on objective material and not merely on police reports or a subjective opinion. It stressed the importance of giving the person an opportunity to show cause and present their case, adhering to principles of natural justice.
Kishore Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1979 Cr.L.J. 1109 Raj):
This case highlighted that the proceedings under Section 107 are preventive and not punitive. The Magistrate’s power is not to punish past acts but to prevent future breaches of peace. The order must clearly specify the reasons for requiring a bond and the duration thereof, ensuring it is proportionate to the apprehended danger.