Private Disputes Beyond the Scope of Section 130 BNSS, Rules Kerala High Court

In an important interpretation of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the Kerala High Court has clarified the limits of executive powers under Chapter IX. The Court held that private disputes, such as cheating or breach of trust cases, cannot be the basis for invoking Section 130 BNSS, which empowers Executive Magistrates to take preventive action for maintaining public peace and tranquillity.

The judgment, delivered by Justice V.G. Arun in M.V. Nithamol v. State of Kerala (Crl.M.C. No. 8561 of 2025, decided on 13 October 2025), quashed the proceedings initiated by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) under Sections 126, 130, and 132 BNSS. The Court emphasised that executive powers under BNSS must not be misused to intervene in purely private disputes unless there is clear material to suggest a potential disturbance of public peace.

Background of the Case

Facts and Context

The petitioner, M.V. Nithamol, was summoned by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Muvattupuzha, under Sections 126, 130, and 132 BNSS. The summons and order (Annexures A3 and A4) were issued based on two pending criminal cases against her under Sections 406 (Criminal Breach of Trust) and 420 (Cheating) of the Indian Penal Code.

These offences were registered as:

• Crime No. 1026/2024 and
• Crime No. 1140/2024,

both at Kunnathunadu Police Station, Ernakulam Rural District.

The SDM initiated proceedings under Section 130 BNSS, citing these pending criminal cases as evidence of potential threats to peace and order. However, the petitioner challenged the action before the High Court, arguing that the invocation of Section 130 was wholly unjustified because the alleged offences were civil-private in nature and posed no threat to public tranquillity.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The counsel for the petitioner, Adv. Binu Babukuttan raised three key contentions:

Misuse of Section 130 BNSS

The petitioner argued that Section 130 applies only when there is a real threat to public peace, not in cases involving personal or private disputes. The offences of cheating and breach of trust are bilateral transactions between individuals and cannot, by themselves, justify executive intervention under preventive provisions.

Violation of Procedural Safeguards under Section 126 BNSS

It was contended that no prior notice or opportunity to show cause was provided before passing the impugned order, contrary to the express requirement of Section 126 BNSS, which mandates such notice.

Improper Issuance of Summons under Section 132 BNSS

The petitioner further argued that Section 132 BNSS allows issuance of summons or arrest only if the person fails to appear after notice under Section 130 or if such arrest is necessary to prevent breach of peace. Since no such urgency or default existed, the SDM’s action was beyond jurisdiction.

Respondent’s Submissions

The Public Prosecutor, representing the State of Kerala, contended that:

• The order issued by the SDM was only a show-cause notice, asking the petitioner to explain why preventive action under Section 130 BNSS should not be taken.
• The summons under Section 132 BNSS were issued because the petitioner allegedly failed to appear after receiving notice.
• However, the prosecution failed to demonstrate how the private disputes between the parties had any potential to disturb public peace or tranquillity, which is the core condition for invoking Chapter IX BNSS.

Key Legal Provisions Involved

To understand the ruling, it is important to briefly outline the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).

Section 126 BNSS – Procedure for Initiating Proceedings

This section corresponds to Section 107 of the CrPC. It allows an Executive Magistrate to initiate proceedings when there is information that a person is likely to commit a breach of the peace or disturb public tranquillity. However, before issuing any direction, the Magistrate must:

• Record the substance of the information received, and
• Issue a notice to the person concerned, asking them to show cause why they should not be required to execute a bond for maintaining peace.

Section 130 BNSS – Order to be made

When a Magistrate, acting under Sections 126–129 of the BNSS, considers it necessary to require any person to show cause, they must issue a written order specifying the key information received, the bond amount, its duration, and the number and suitability of sureties.

Section 132 BNSS – Issue of Summons or Warrant When the Person Is Not Present Before the Court

If the person is not present in court, the Magistrate shall issue a summons requiring their appearance. If the person is in custody, the Magistrate shall issue a warrant directing the officer in charge to bring them before the court.

However, if the Magistrate, based on a police report or other recorded information, believes there is a likelihood of a breach of peace that cannot be prevented without immediate arrest, a warrant for arrest may be issued at any time.

Court’s Analysis and Observations

Justice V.G. Arun carefully analysed the sequence of actions taken by the SDM and the nature of the allegations against the petitioner.

1. Nature of the Offences

The Court noted that the petitioner was facing charges of breach of trust and cheating, both of which are private, transactional offences. These do not, by themselves, indicate any likelihood of public disorder or disturbance of tranquillity.

“The offences alleged against the petitioner are breach of trust and cheating. Being so, the Executive Magistrate is duty bound to state as to how the commission of those offences, which are more in the nature of private dispute, can result in breach of peace or the tranquility in the locality being disturbed.”

2. Lack of Reasoning by the Magistrate

The Court found that the impugned order (Annexure A4) failed to mention any specific information or reasoning as to how the petitioner’s acts could lead to a breach of peace. There was also no record of the substance of the information received, as required by Section 126 BNSS.

This omission rendered the order procedurally defective and legally unsustainable.

3. Limits of Executive Power

The High Court emphasised that Chapter IX of BNSS is designed to maintain public order, not to settle private grievances. The Magistrate’s role is preventive, but the threshold for intervention is high.

“Action against the perpetrators can be taken only in accordance with procedure prescribed.”

4. No Justification for Summons under Section 132

Since the initiation itself was illegal, the summons issued under Section 132 BNSS automatically fell. The Court rejected the prosecution’s claim that non-appearance justified the summons, holding that the foundation of the proceeding itself was void.

Decision and Outcome

The Kerala High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case, quashing both the show-cause order (Annexure A4) and the summons (Annexure A3).

“For the aforementioned reasons the Crl.M.C. is allowed and Annexure A4 order, quashed.”

The Court concluded that invoking Section 130 BNSS for private disputes constitutes an abuse of preventive powers, and Executive Magistrates must demonstrate a clear nexus between the alleged conduct and public disorder before exercising such powers.

Significance of the Judgment

1. Preventive Justice v. Personal Liberty

This decision reinforces the balance between preventive justice and personal liberty, a core constitutional principle. While the State has a duty to prevent potential disturbances, such power must not encroach upon private autonomy or be used to intimidate individuals involved in civil or personal disputes.

2. Limiting Executive Overreach

The ruling serves as a warning against administrative overreach. Executive Magistrates often issue preventive orders to display authority, even when disputes are civil or commercial in nature. This judgment draws a clear boundary, affirming that preventive provisions cannot be misapplied to bypass due process or pressure private parties.

3. Clarifying the Scope of Section 130 BNSS

This is among the first reported High Court interpretations of Section 130 BNSS, which replaced Section 110 of the CrPC. The judgment clarifies that:

• Section 130 is not a tool for moral policing or private conflict resolution.
• It is meant solely to prevent imminent breaches of peace.
• A subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate must be supported by objective material.

4. Procedural Compliance Under Section 126 BNSS

The Court reaffirmed that the recording of information and issuance of a show-cause notice are mandatory prerequisites. Any failure to comply renders the entire proceeding void ab initio.

Constitutional Dimensions

Article 21 – Right to Life and Personal Liberty

Unwarranted preventive action without due process violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which guarantees protection of personal liberty except by procedure established by law. When Executive Magistrates act without jurisdiction or justification, such actions undermine the procedural fairness that Article 21 embodies.

Article 14 – Equality and Non-Arbitrariness

The arbitrary application of Section 130 to private disputes also breaches Article 14, as it subjects individuals to unequal and capricious treatment without a rational nexus to the object of maintaining peace.

Conclusion

Kerala High Court’s judgment in M.V. Nithamol v. State of Kerala sets a vital precedent under the BNSS regime. It asserts that:

• Section 130 BNSS cannot be invoked for private disputes devoid of any nexus to public peace.
• Procedural safeguards under Section 126 are mandatory, not optional.
• Executive Magistrates must exercise their powers judiciously and with recorded justification.

This landmark decision strengthens the protection of civil liberties within India’s preventive justice framework and reaffirms the judiciary’s role as guardian of personal freedom against administrative excess.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams