Section 107 & 151 CRPC Interlocutory Orders

Section 107 & 151 CRPC Interlocutory Orders

by

Last Updated on April 3, 2026 by Satish Mishra

Sections 107 and 151 of the CrPC are preventive provisions used to maintain public peace, allowing magistrates to require bonds (S. 107) or police to make arrests without a warrant (S. 151). Orders passed under these sections are generally considered interlocutory—procedural, temporary, and not final judgments—and are often not subject to revision.

This post is about Section 107 & 151 CRPC Interlocutory Orders where revision petition is not maintainable before the court. Read more.

Key Aspects of Section 107 & 151 CrPC

  • Section 107 (Security for Keeping Peace): Empowers Executive Magistrates to require a person to show cause why they should not execute a bond (with or without sureties) to keep the peace for up to one year, upon receiving information that they are likely to disturb public tranquility.
  • Section 151 (Arrest to Prevent Cognizable Offenses): Empowers police to arrest any person without a warrant, if it appears that the commission of a cognizable offense cannot be prevented otherwise.
  • Preventive Nature: These sections are meant for prevention, not punishment, emphasizing maintaining peace over investigating a committed crime.

Interlocutory Orders and Review

  • Definition: An interlocutory order is an intermediate order made during the pendency of a case, not deciding the final rights or liabilities of the parties.
  • Revision Bar: Because proceedings under Sections 107/111 CrPC are preventive, orders passed by Executive Magistrates within these proceedings are generally categorized as interlocutory, meaning revision petitions under Section 397(2) of the CrPC are generally not maintainable against them.
  • Judicial View: Courts have observed that the term “interlocutory order” applies to these temporary measures that do not terminate the proceeding definitively.

Pawan Kumar & Anr. Vs State & Anr. 

This post is a summary of judgment wherein both the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent no. 2 are neighbors. As per the kalandra filed u/s 107/150 Cr.PC dated 07.11.2019, both the parties had filed several complaints against each other regarding using abusive language against each other. Both the respondents i.e. State and respondent no. 2 Sh. Ajit Kumar Verma has raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is interlocutory. The Court held that the present revision petition is not maintainable as the impugned order is interlocutory, same is accordingly hereby dismissed.

Also Read- Aldanish Rein vs State Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. 

Judgment digest

CR No. 20/2020

Date of institution: 08.01.2020

Date of decision: 25.06.2020

Petitioners: 

Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Sunder Singh

Poonam Vs. W/o Sh. Pawan Kumar

Both are R/o Upper Ground Floor, H. No. 16, Gali No. 1, Lal Dora Extension, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi.

Respondents:

The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi)

Sh. Ajit Kumar Verma S/o Sh. P. N. Verma R/o 3rd Floor, H. No. 16, Gali No. 1, Lal Dora Extension, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi.

Also Read- Vol. III Ch. 3. CHAPTER 3 Security Cases

Facts and evidence presented by both parties.

Both the parties i.e. petitioners and respondent no. 2 are neighbors. Both the parties are residing in H. No. 16, Gali No. 1, Lal Dora Extension, Sant Nagar, Burari, Delhi. The petitioners are residing on the ground floor and respondent no. 2 is residing on the third floor of the said house. As per the ka landra filed u/s 107/150 Cr.PC dated 07.11.2019, both the parties had filed several complaints against each other regarding using abusive language against each other. Both the respondents i.e. State and respondent no. 2 Sh. Ajit Kumar Verma have raised the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the present revision petition on the ground that the impugned order is interlocutory in nature and view of Section 397 (2) IPC, the revision against the interlocutory order is not maintainable. the petitioner was served upon notice under Section 107/111 Cr.PC by Special Executive Magistrate asking him to attend the SEM’s Court and to show cause as to why he should not be ordered to execute a surety bond and a personal bond. Whenever a show cause notice is issued, a person is given the opportunity to reply to show cause notice and to put up his case as to why it was not necessary to call him to SEM’s Court and why it was not necessary for him to execute a bond of keeping the peace. On the other hand, counsel for petitioners has argued that the present revision petition is maintainable since the impugned order is not interlocutory in nature as it is a summoning order deciding the substantial rights of the parties. None of the judgment relied upon by the petitioners is directly dealing with the issue of whether the order passed in the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC is interlocutory or not. On the contrary, the judgment of “Sanjeev Kapoor” (Supra), relied upon by respondent no. 2 is directly on the point that the revision against the show cause notice issued by SEM in the proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC is interlocutory in nature. The petitioners were served with the notice u/s 107/111 Cr.PC by SEM asking them to attend his court and to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute a surety bond and personal bond. There is a clear distinction between issuing process to the delinquents asking them to execute interim bond during pendency of the proceeding under Section 107 and a notice requiring them to show cause why they would not be asked to execute an interim bond. In the latter cause, no right of the party is decided. The delinquent has the opportunity to file his reply to the notice and can persuade the Magistrate to drop the proposal to require him to furnish an interim bond. In the former case, the Magistrate has already made up his mind to require the delinquent to furnish a bond.

Also Read- tis hazari court: delhi.

Judgment:

The impugned order reflects that the SEM before issuing notice u/s 107/151 Cr.PC to the petitioners and respondent no. 2, has considered the statement of IO on record as mentioned in point no. 1 of the “Moinnudin” (Supra) judgment. All other three points mentioned in the said judgment are required to be taken into consideration by the SEM post-issuance of notice and not at the stage of notice. Keeping in mind the observation of Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment of “Ramnaraian Singh” (Supra) that the object of proceedings u/s 107/151 Cr.PC is preventive and not penal and also given the ratio of “Sanjeev Kapoor” (Supra), that the show-cause notice issued by SEM is a purely interlocutory order, the present revision petition is not maintainable as the impugned order is interlocutory, same is accordingly hereby dismissed. Trial Court Record be sent back to the concerned court. The revision file is consigned to the record room.

Also Read- revision application against interlocutory orders – Indian Kanoon

Post Written by – Research Team of LegalSeva (LawFirm) of Satish Mishra Advocate. Responses from Google’s AI Overview  included in Post.

Disclaimer: This is for informational purposes only. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your case.

For case specific advice please contact criminal lawyers advocates in Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Kharar Derabassi Zirakpur

For more info, call 9988817966.

Call Us