Security for keeping the peace in other cases
Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with security for keeping the peace in other cases. 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 grou The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(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.
Section 107, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 126 Security for keeping peace in other cases Text carried over almost unchanged 99%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A purchaser of an undivided share in joint family property does not acquire any right to possession of the land; his only right is to sue for partition. Therefore, the accused persons, being purchasers of undivided shares, could not claim to be in 'settled possession' of the disputed agricultural land. The four essential attributes of settled possession as established in Puran Singh (actual physical possession over sufficiently long period, possession to knowledge of owner with animus possidendi, complete and final dispossession acquiesced in by owner, and for culturable land, growing of crop) must be read conjunctively. Since the accused did not satisfy these attributes and were wholly armed aggressors while the deceased party was not armed (except with a non-dangerous Kamari), they had no right of private defence and were therefore guilty of murder.
On this section: Mentioned in context of the complaint filed before the City Magistrate by the deceased's father regarding trespass and cultivation of the disputed field.
-
Ravishwar Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When injuries are found on the person of the accused in a case where a plea of private defense is raised, the prosecution must explain these injuries. If the prosecution fails to adequately explain the injuries on the accused and the circumstances suggest a probable case of self-defense, the accused is entitled to acquittal. The right of private defense need not be specifically pleaded; courts may act upon such conclusion based on materials placed on record by the prosecution itself. In cases involving armed conflict where both parties sustained injuries, the court must examine whether the accused were aggressors or acted in self-defense, considering the genesis of the occurrence and the nature of injuries. Procedural defects in investigation, including failure to produce crucial evidence like station diary and non-examination of Investigating Officer, combined with temporal inconsistencies and delayed witness statements, can vitiate the prosecution case and entitle the accused to acquittal.
On this section: Mentioned regarding pending case against appellants for breach of peace
-
Ravishwar Manjhi vs State of Jharkhand
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When in a criminal case involving violent confrontation both parties are armed with deadly weapons and sustain injuries, uniform murder convictions under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained against all accused. If material on record creates reasonable probability that accused exercised right of private defence against apprehended death or grievous hurt, the accused is entitled to acquittal even without express plea, provided the right was not exercised after danger ceased. The prosecution must prove initial aggression and must explain injuries on accused persons when self-defence is a probable scenario. Courts must evaluate all circumstances pragmatically without hyper-technical approach and cannot reject defence merely because accused failed to prove it, but must assess whether it was probable given the materials on record.
On this section: Proceeding that was pending against accused; Court noted lack of documentary evidence regarding when initiated
-
Jagtamba Devi vs Hem Ram
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court is constitutionally and procedurally bound to provide reasoned orders explaining the basis for its decision. The complete absence of reasons in a judicial order renders that order unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice. An order that merely states "Heard. Dismissed" without any indication of the court's mind or application of law is fundamentally defective and subject to reversal on appeal. The right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, and the giving of reasons is one of the salutary requirements of natural justice.
On this section: Proceedings for prevention of offences; respondents argued double jeopardy does not apply to these sections.
-
Cimal Raveendran vs S.i. of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Initiation of proceedings under Section 107 Cr.P.C by a magistrate under Section 111 Cr.P.C is a matter of great consequence requiring due and proper application of mind to relevant facts and materials before passing such an order. An order passed without such careful and cautious application of mind, particularly where the magistrate fails to consider the specific crime registered against the accused or to properly distinguish between Sections 107 and 108 Cr.P.C, is liable to be set aside on judicial review.
On this section: Security for keeping the peace - applied to determine whether magistrate properly invoked this section
-
Madhu Narang vs Commissioner of Police
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a preventive detention order is issued by the competent police authority (DCP) under Section 107/150 Cr.P.C., the High Court, in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction, will not interfere with such order unless there are manifest grounds showing abuse of authority, violation of natural justice, or procedural irregularity. The court will allow the preventive detention proceedings to proceed as directed by the police authority.
On this section: Preventive detention provision allowing police to take action against individuals likely to commit breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility
-
Sagar vs Union Territory
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A prisoner with an extensive criminal history involving multiple serious offences (dacoity, robbery, theft, forgery, and drug-related crimes) cannot be granted parole merely on the grounds of meeting family members or performing conjugal rights, particularly when the parole authority has reasonably determined that releasing such a prisoner would pose a potential danger to society.
On this section: Bond to keep the peace - DDR No. 62 of 2015 against petitioner
-
Shobha Sharma vs State Th.p/s.gandhi Nagar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A petition challenging criminal proceedings that are statutorily limited to a specific duration (six months in this case) becomes infructuous and may be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner fails to actively pursue the matter and does not appear before the court.
On this section: Relates to proceedings for maintaining peace and good behavior; the original proceedings initiated by Lalita Devi were under this section
-
Gaurav vs State of Hp
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Security proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 CrPC are preventive in nature and do not bar subsequent FIR registration for cognizable offences arising from the same incident. Discharge in security proceedings is not acquittal and does not attract the prohibition of double jeopardy under Section 300 CrPC. A person discharged in preventive proceedings may be prosecuted for criminal offences based on the same facts. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings, should only examine whether allegations prima facie constitute an offence without conducting a mini-trial or appreciating evidence. Contradictions in complaint or complainant statement are not grounds for quashing FIR at threshold stage.
On this section: Security for keeping peace - preventive proceedings initiated against petitioner No. 4
-
Pramod Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A notice issued under Section 111/112 CrPC on a printed proforma without setting forth the substance of information received by the Magistrate, the magistrate's opinion on likelihood of breach of peace, and specific details of allegations against the person is defective, invalid, and liable to be quashed. The mandatory elements prescribed by Section 111 CrPC must be strictly complied with, and the object of setting forth the substance of information is to inform the person what allegations they have to answer. Proceedings based on such defective notice cannot be sustained.
On this section: Cited as part of the framework for preventive detention proceedings requiring a person to show cause
-
Mente Seethaiah vs The Sub Divisional Magistrate/revenue Divisional Officer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Procedural safeguards mandated under Sections 111 and 114 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 are essential protections against arbitrary action and undue harassment of citizens. Non-compliance with these provisions—specifically the failure to pass a preliminary order under Section 111 before issuing summons under Section 113, and the failure to serve such order along with the summons—vitiates the summons with illegality. Additionally, when the statutory six-month period for completing inquiry under Section 118(6) CrPC expires without completion and without recording special reasons, the continuation of proceedings constitutes abuse of process of court and warrants quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Establishes maximum period of one year for bond to keep peace; the summons directed a two-year bond which violated this provision
-
Surriya vs The State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where an enquiry under Sections 107/111 Cr.P.C is not completed within the statutory period of six months prescribed under Section 116(6) Cr.P.C, and no special reasons are recorded in writing by the Magistrate for such non-completion, the proceedings shall stand terminated and the High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the notice and proceedings to prevent abuse of process and ensure compliance with statutory requirements.
On this section: Provision for issuing notice to prevent breach of peace or commission of offence
-
Leather Avenue India vs State of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When allegations in a complaint disclose commission of cognizable offences, the police have a mandatory statutory duty to register an FIR and conduct investigation in accordance with law, regardless of the severity of injuries or other administrative considerations. The refusal to register an FIR in such circumstances is arbitrary and can be remedied through a writ of mandamus from the High Court.
On this section: Applied for arrest of persons creating disturbance and threatening behavior; used as basis for police action in detaining the accused
-
Ram Lochan(died) vs State of U.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
An interlocutory order, such as issuance of a notice by a magistrate under Sections 111/112 Cr.P.C., cannot be challenged through revision under Section 379(2) Cr.P.C., and the High Court will not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash such notice when the applicants have an adequate opportunity to contest the matter before the court below by responding to the notice and presenting their defense.
On this section: Power to require security for keeping the peace in certain cases. Basis for notices dated May 14, 2019, and August 5, 2019.
-
Shyama Devi vs Spl.executive Magistrate Krishna Ngr &or
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A petitioner/accused cannot dictate the manner and procedure of criminal proceedings to a Magistrate. The Magistrate is bound to proceed in accordance with the statutory procedure prescribed under Section 116 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and cannot deviate from this procedure based on the preferences or demands of the accused. The High Court will not interfere with the Magistrate's conduct when the Magistrate is following the prescribed statutory procedure.
On this section: Basis for the criminal proceedings against the petitioner; the writ petition was filed under this section challenging the Magistrate's conduct
-
Hemant Saxena vs State of Rajasthan through P.p.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A revisional court must hear all parties and consider all material submissions, including counter-complaints filed under Section 340 CrPC, before deciding a revision petition. Failure to do so violates the principles of natural justice and renders the order procedurally defective and liable to be set aside by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.
On this section: Cited as basis for the original complaint regarding breach of peace and threatening behavior
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… We do not think that under these circumstances, the detenu could be heard to contend that there is any delay at all in issuing the order of detention. 6. The next contention is that proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) has already been initiated against the detenu, and when the said proceedings is pending, a detention order under the Act cannot be issued, for, the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code is also one intended to prevent the detenu from indulging in anti-social …
-
… The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in passing the preventive detention order, cannot be assailed stating the reason that the said authority ought to have waited for the results of the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure initiated against the detenu. It cannot also be urged that the authorities concerned ought to have applied their subjective satisfaction, opting for externment proceedings against him, instead of resorting to preventive detention. It has been held by a Division Bench of this Court …
-
… But, P.W.2 and her husband i.e., the deceased refused to give an amount of Rs.500/- to A5. On that, disputes arose between both the groups and they filed cases against each other. 10. On 25.03.2011, the security proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity 'CrPC') were initiated before the Revenue Division Officer, Markapur vide M.C.4 of 2011 against both the groups. 11. While so, on 04.07.2011 both parties attended the office of RDO, Markapur in connection with the above proceedings under Section 107 CrPC and …
Questions about Section 107
What have the courts held on Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Ram Pat vs State of Harayana (12 May 2009) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Mentioned in context of the complaint filed before the City Magistrate by the deceased's father regarding trespass and cultivation of the disputed field. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 4 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2001 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 107, section 107 CRPC, section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Ram Pat vs State of Harayana (12 May 2009).
What should I read with Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 126 (Security for keeping peace in other cases), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 107, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.