Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehendeddanger
Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehendeddanger. Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger. 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 Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried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.
Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance of apprehended danger.
(1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, of an affray.
(2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte.
(3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area.
(4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof:
Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a riot or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding six months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification.
(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in-office.
(6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub-section (4).
(7) Where an application under sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order ; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing.
D.-Disputes as to immovable property
Section 144, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 163 Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger Text carried over almost unchanged 89%
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.
-
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgement of Main Case order-17.pdf 2018-07-23. WP(C) 1153/2017. Sikri/Ashok Bhushan. DATE-CHECK flagged 2017-01-24 / 03-25 / 05-24 (challenged 144 order dates, false positive); body is the named 23 Jul 2018 reportable. Repeated identical CrPC 144 prohibitory orders cannot be a perpetual ban on assembly in Central Delhi; 144 is an emergency/temporary power (two months) and an abuse if used to impose a standing ban (Acharya Jagdishwaranand). Map crpc 144 + BNSS 163 successor (near-identical 0.8884). Do not pad Art 19 (Anuradha Bhasin already in combined).
On this section: Repeated identical CrPC 144 orders that amount to a perpetual ban on assembly are an abuse of an emergency power limited to two months (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan).
-
Robustaa (hyglow Cafe) vs The Commissioner Corp. of Chennai
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A municipal corporation cannot impose license conditions that add exceptions to the Cigarettes Act 2003 beyond those specified in the statute. Specifically: (1) A blanket prohibition on sale of tobacco products to all customers is ultra vires Section 6 which permits sale except to minors and within 100 yards of schools; (2) The word 'sale' is distinct from 'service' and a prohibition on 'other services' in a smoking area does not prohibit sale of tobacco products; (3) 'Smoking' as defined in the Act includes smoking with a hookah, and therefore hookah smoking is permissible in designated smoking areas; (4) The word 'regulate' in statutes does not confer power to prohibit entirely; (5) Building-related conditions such as smoking area dimensions are within municipal authority if they do not exceed statutory scope; (6) Executive orders using temporary powers (Section 144 CrPC) cannot impose permanent prohibitions.
On this section: Section 144 orders are temporary and cannot extend beyond 2 months. Court rejected sustained use of Section 144 as a means to impose permanent prohibitions on hookah and tobacco sales.
-
State Sub Inspector of Police vs Thanki Srinivas
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A voluntary and uncoerced admission of guilt by an accused person, when properly recorded after examination under Section 251 Cr.P.C and after ensuring the accused understands the nature of accusation, is sufficient basis for conviction under Section 252 Cr.P.C without the necessity of adducing oral or documentary evidence. In cases of negligent acts likely to spread dangerous disease during public health emergencies (such as COVID-19 pandemic), operating commercial establishments in violation of Section 144 Cr.P.C quarantine orders constitutes an offence under Section 269 IPC, and conviction with appropriate punishment is warranted to protect public health and enforce compliance with emergency regulations.
On this section: Power to issue orders in urgent cases. Government of India promulgated Section 144 Cr.P.C during COVID-19 pandemic to prevent spreading of coronavirus.
-
Police Commissioner vs Yash Pal Sharma
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When police use force to disperse an unlawful assembly, they are authorized to use only reasonable and necessary force as prescribed by Section 129 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Rule 14.56 of Punjab Police Rules. The force must be used solely for the purpose of dispersing the assembly and not for punitive or repressive purposes. If the police exceeds this limit and uses excessive or brutal force, it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens under Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b), and 21 of the Constitution, and the state is liable to compensate the victim for the tort committed by its employees. The reasonableness of force used must be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of each case, including the nature of the assembly, whether it was armed or unarmed, whether warning was given, and the nature and severity of injuries inflicted.
On this section: Allows promulgation of prohibitory orders to prevent assemblies. The court recognized that violation of Section 144 orders makes an assembly unlawful, but this does not justify excessive police force.
-
State vs Abhinav
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When the prosecution fails to follow proper procedure in evidence collection, does not join independent witnesses, does not properly seal and preserve evidence, does not verify manufacturer licenses, and the scientific analysis is inconclusive regarding the percentage of the alleged prohibited substance, the accused is entitled to acquittal on the ground of insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt, even if some procedural violations are established. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, and procedural lapses combined with inconclusive evidence warrant acquittal.
On this section: Order by DCP prohibiting use of nicotine in hookah bars; Court found insufficient evidence that accused violated this order
-
Sheo Jee Sah vs The State of Bihar& ORS.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner seeks High Court intervention in a writ petition based on alleged police recommendations for criminal prosecution, the petitioner must provide copies of the actual recommendations and supporting materials to enable the court to examine the matter. Without such documentary evidence, the High Court cannot intervene directly but should direct the petitioner to pursue the matter before the appropriate forum or authority competent to take action on such recommendations.
On this section: Section 144 CrPC allows for orders to prevent apprehended breach of peace or disturbance of public tranquility. The police obtained an order under this section restraining the respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession of the land.
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.
-
… In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India <sup>162</sup> , proceedings under Article 32 were initiated challenging orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting protests in certain areas in Delhi. The issue before this Court was whether the total ban of protests at the Jantar Mantar Road would violate the right to protest which is traceable to Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). One of the inter-related issues was whether the right …
-
… In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India <sup>162</sup> , proceedings under Article 32 were initiated challenging orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting protests in certain areas in Delhi. The issue before this Court was whether the total ban of protests at the Jantar Mantar Road would violate the right to protest which is traceable to Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). One of the inter-related issues was whether the right …
-
… In Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India <sup>162</sup> , proceedings under Article 32 were initiated challenging orders issued under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibiting protests in certain areas in Delhi. The issue before this Court was whether the total ban of protests at the Jantar Mantar Road would violate the right to protest which is traceable to Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b). One of the inter-related issues was whether the right …
Questions about Section 144
What have the courts held on Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (23 Jul 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Repeated identical CrPC 144 orders that amount to a perpetual ban on assembly are an abuse of an emergency power limited to two months (Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan). Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2008 to 2021.
How do I find court cases under Section 144 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 144, section 144 CRPC, section 144 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. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan v. Union of India (23 Jul 2018).
What should I read with Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 134 (Service or notification of order), so none of them can safely be read on its own. 2 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 163 (Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, commonly called curfew order or prohibitory order, and cited as CRPC 144, 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.