23.09.2026 Item No.34 Court No.30 g.b. Calcutta High Court Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Appellate Side CRR 4400 of 2023 With CRAN 6 of 2026 Utpal Majumder Vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr. Ms. Moyukh Mukherjee Ms. Sagnika Banerjee Ms. Sarmistha Basak ….For the Petitioner Mr. Aditya Tiwari Ms. Namrata Chatterjee …..For the State 1. Affidavit of service filed be taken on record. 2. The criminal revisional application along with CRAN 6 of 2026 is taken up for hearing. 3. The criminal revisional application has been preferred praying for quashing of proceeding being NGR 220 of 2023 before the Court of the Learned Special Executive Magistrate, (In-Charge), Police Commissionerate, Bidhannagar under Sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 4. It is stated by the petitioner that the impugned proceedings initiated before the Learned Special Executive Magistrate, (In-Charge), Police Commissionerate, Bidhannagar has not been 2 registered in accordance with law, considering the fact that the matter has not been admitted as per the provision of Section 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 5. A Co-ordinate bench of this High Court in CRR 3465 of 2019, (Rajesh Prasad Tanti vs The State of West Bengal), dated 01.08.2022, laid down certain guidelines to be followed by an Executive Magistrate while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. The Court held:- “……..The learned Executive Magistrate henceforth will adhere to the following guidelines in case such persons who are in custody are directed to be produced before the learned Executive Magistrate while exercising their jurisdiction under Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: (a) The production warrant should accompany a copy of the order passed by the learned Executive Magistrate. (b) The bond which is expressed in the show cause notice should not be excessive or impossible to be executed and must be in the nature of a bond granted by a Court allowing prayer for bail in cases under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by the Sessions Judge of the concerned district. (c) On the first day of production if the accused or the petitioner is unrepresented he must be provided with an option of legal representation from the District Legal Aid Services Authority. (d) If the accused or the petitioner is unable to understand the meaning of the terms “show cause’ then the Court would explain the allegations against him and as provided in Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read out 3 such allegation and ask him whether he pleads guilty or not (in view of the fact that Subsection 2 of Section 116 of Cr.P.C. refers to summons cases). (e) The Magistrate would within a month of such production make efforts for commencement of recording of evidence of the witnesses intended to be produced by the applicants or the prosecution. (f) If under Section 116(3) of Cr.P.C. the accused or the persons are unable to furnish the bond then in that case they would be deemed to be in custody from the date of their first production before the learned Executive Magistrate and if their enquiry as referred to in Sub- Section 6 of Section 116 of Cr.P.C. are not concluded within a period of six months the Court would close the proceedings and release the accused or the persons against whom proceedings were initiated. (g) Under no circumstances a detained person would be asked to face an enquiry extending beyond the period of six months by assigning any special reasons……….” 6. In Istkar vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., in Criminal Appeal No. 2034 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 8586 of 2021, the Supreme Court held:- “11. As noticed, the scope and nature of Section 107 CrPC is preventive and not punitive. It aims at ensuring that there be no breach of peace and that the public tranquility be not disturbed by any wrongful or illegal act. The action being preventive in nature is not based on any overt act but is intended to forestall the potential danger to serve the interests of public at large. In other words, this provision is in aid of orderly society and seeks to avert any conduct subversive of the peace and public tranquility. The provision authorities 4 the Magistrate to initiate proceedings against a person if upon information, he is satisfied that such person is either likely to commit breach of peace or disturb public tranquility or is likely to commit any wrongful act that might probably produce the same result. Simply stated, the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Code are merely preventive in nature and are not to be used as a vehicle for punishment.” 7. It is the contention of the petitioner that the learned Executive Magistrate proceeded to issue notice, without even being prima facie satisfied. 8. Section 107 of Cr.P.C., lays down:- “107. Security for keeping the peace in other cases.- (1) When an Executive Magistrate receives information that any person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity or to do any wrongful act that may probably occasion a breach of the peace or disturb the public tranquillity 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) Proceedings 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 tranquillity or to do any wrongful act as aforesaid beyond such jurisdiction.” 9. Section 110 of Cr.P.C., lays down:- 5 “110. Security for good behaviour from habitual offenders. - When [an Executive Magistrate] receives information that there is within his local jurisdiction a person who – (a)is by habit a robber, house-breaker, thief or forger, or (b)is by habit a receiver of stolen property knowing the same to have been stolen, or (c)habitually protects or harbours thieves, or aids in the concealment or disposal of stolen property, or (d)habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of the offence of kidnapping, abduction, extortion, cheating or mischief, or any offence punishable under Chapter XII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under section 489-A, section 489-B, section 489-C or section 489-D of that Code, or (e)habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of offences, involving a breach of the peace, or (f)habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of – (i)any offence under one or more of the following Acts, namely:- (a)the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940); (b)the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1973 (46 of 1973)]; (c)the Employees' Provident Funds [and [Family Pension Fund] Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)]; (d)the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954); (e)the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955); (f)the Untouchability (Offences) Act, 1955 (22 of 1955); (g)the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962), [* * *] (h) The Foreigners Act, 1946 or] (ii)any offence punishable under any other law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering or of adulteration of food or drugs or of corruption, or (g)is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community, such Magistrate may, in the manner hereinafter provided, require such person to show cause why he should not be ordered to execute a bond, with sureties, for his good 6 behaviour for such period, not exceeding three years, as the Magistrate thinks fit.” 10. It is further stated that there is absolutely no reasons given showing prima facie satisfaction for issuing such notice and it is thus stated that the proceeding initiated being not in accordance with law is liable to be quashed. 11. On perusal of the orders recorded in the impugned proceedings, it appears that the first order dated 4.9.2023 records that the Magistrate, has seen the P.R., wherein it appears to be prima facie, a civil dispute relating to family property, between the parties. 12. Though the learned Magistrate has noted, the P.R. being filed, there is no opinion formed as to the said P.R. nor to the extent that there is sufficient ground for proceeding, no prima facie satisfaction has been noted, while issuing the notice. 13. The provisions under the act clearly lays down that there has to be an opinion formed that there is sufficient ground for proceeding. 14. In the present case there is nothing in the order to show that there was an opinion formed for proceeding under the said sections. 15. Thus the initiation of the case itself not being as per the provision of law, the same is liable to be quashed. 7 16. Accordingly the proceeding in NGR 220 of 2023 before the Court of the Learned Special Executive Magistrate, (In-Charge), Police Commissionerate, Bidhannagar under Sections 107/116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, is hereby quashed in respect of the petitioner namely Utpal Majumder. 17. CRR 4400 of 2023 along with CRAN 6 of 2026 are disposed of. 18. All connected Applications, if any, stands disposed of. 19. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. 20. Copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for necessary compliance. 21. Urgent certified website copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied expeditiously after complying with all, necessary legal formalities. (Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.)