Section 107 CrPC proceedings become infructuous after the statutory one-year preventive period expires.

The petitioners challenged the order dated 18 October 2017 passed by the Sessions Judge, Khagaria, in Criminal Revision No. 52 of 2017, which affirmed the Sub-Divisional Magistrate’s order dated 13 June 2017 in Case No. 646(M) of 2017 directing them to furnish bonds under Section 116(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”).

The preventive proceeding was initiated on the basis of a report submitted by the Circle Officer, Alauli, alleging an apprehension of breach of peace arising from a dispute concerning possession of land.

By the time the High Court considered the application, the proceeding had been pending since 2017 and the maximum statutory period for security under Section 107 CrPC had expired.

Whether the High Court should examine the legality of the orders passed under Sections 107 and 116(3) CrPC when the maximum one-year period of the preventive proceeding had already expired?

Whether the High Court was required to adjudicate the parties’ rival claims regarding title or possession over the disputed land in the present preventive proceeding?

The Court applied Section 107 CrPC, which empowers an Executive Magistrate, upon receiving information indicating a likelihood of breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquillity and being satisfied that sufficient grounds exist, to require the concerned person to show cause why he should not execute a bond for keeping the peace for a period not exceeding one year.

The governing principle was that proceedings under Section 107 CrPC are preventive, not punitive or adjudicatory, and their efficacy is confined to the statutory period of security, which cannot exceed one year.

The Court also considered the consequential order passed under Section 116(3) CrPC.

The Court noted that the impugned orders arose from a preventive proceeding initiated in 2017 and that the order under Section 116(3) CrPC was passed on 13 June 2017.

Since the one-year period permissible under Section 107 CrPC had long expired, examination of the orders on merits would serve no effective or fruitful purpose; the proceeding had consequently lost its preventive efficacy by efflux of time.

The Court further held that the underlying dispute concerning possession or title to the land could not appropriately be adjudicated in the present proceeding, which was limited to preventing an apprehended breach of peace.

It expressly clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the title or possession of either party and preserved the parties’ liberty to pursue any other remedy available in law concerning the land dispute.

The trial court record, if any, was directed to be returned along with a copy of the judgment.