Justice Jitendra Kumar quashes order by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur

In Lalan Prasad Singh vs. The State Of Bihar through The Principal Secretary., Food And Civil Supply (2026), Justice Jitendra Kumar of Patna High Court passed an order dated April, 7, 2026, wherein, he concluded:"41. . Hence, I find that learned Executive Magistrate has initiated the proceeding without any jurisdiction. There was no occasion for the Executive Magistrate to initiate proceeding against the petitioner under Section 107 Cr.PC. Learned Executive Magistrate, under the guise of acting within its authority/jurisdiction has transcended his authority/jurisdiction. The petitioner should have been prosecuted for the substantive offence alleged committed by him. 42. 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. 43. Hence, by resort to writ of certiorari, the entire proceeding initiated under Section 107 Cr.PC vide order dated 03.04.2021, passed by learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur in Case No. 437 of 2021 is quashed. The present petition stands allowed, accordingly."

The judgment reads: "Learned Registrar General is directed to send a copy of this order to the Court of learned Executive Magistrate concerned. Learned Registrar General is also directed to send a copy of this order to Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar for circulating this order amongst the Executive Magistrates for their information."

The judgement reads:"....on scrutiny of the alleged facts and circumstances against the petitioner, it clearly transpires that at most the petitioner has committed substantive offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code and hence, he should have been prosecuted for such offences. There was no allegation of any overt-act which could give apprehension of breach of public peace and tranquility. It has been already found that Section 107 Cr.PC is preventive in nature and not punitive. If the petitioner or accused had committed any offence, he could have been prosecuted, but on the basis of the offence committed, the learned Executive Magistrate had no occasion to initiate proceeding under Section 107 Cr.PC which confers extraordinary jurisdiction on the Executive Magistrate for taking preventive measure to maintain public peace and it has been already shown that public peace is much wider concept. 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 other 10 respondents were:  Director, Food and Civil Supply Department, Government of Bihar,  Information and Technology Department, Government of Bihar, District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Bhagalpur, District Food Supply Officer, Bhagalpur, Superintendent of Police, Bhagalpur, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Rural), Naugachchiya Bhagalpur, Sub-Divisional Officer-cum- Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachchia, Bhagalpur, Officer-in-charge, Naugachchia, lock Marketing Officer, Naugachchia, Bhagalpur and  Assistant District Supply Officer, Naugachchia, Bhagalpur. 

The criminal writ petition was preferred by the petitioner to seek quashing of the entire proceeding in Case No. 437 of 2021 initiated vide order dated April 3, 2021 passed by Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naugachhia, Bhagalpur under Section 107 Cr.PC.