CrPC Section 116 – Inquiry As To Truth Of Information

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) is the procedural law governing the operation of criminal courts in India. Section 116 of CrPC provides the legal framework for conducting an inquiry into the truth of information received by a Magistrate.

Legal Provision Of CrPC Section 116

“Section 116: Inquiry as to truth of information:

1. When an order under section 111 has been read or explained under section 112 to a person present in Court, or when any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in compliance with, or in execution of, a summons or warrant, issued under section 113, the Magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary.
2. Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases.
3. After the commencement and before the completion of the inquiry under sub-section (1), the Magistrate, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety, may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, direct the person in respect of whom the order under section 111 has been made to execute bond, with or without sureties, for keeping the peace or maintaining good behaviour until the conclusion of the inquiry, and may detain him in custody until such bond is executed or, in default of execution, until the inquiry is concluded. Provided that-
   1. no person against whom proceedings are not being taken under section 108, section 109 or section 110 shall be directed to execute a bond for maintaining good behaviour;
   2. the conditions of such bond, whether as to the amount thereof or as to the provision of sureties or the number thereof or the pecuniary extent of their liability, shall not be more onerous than those specified in order under section 111.
4. For the purposes of this section the fact that a person is an habitual offender or is so desperate and dangerous as to render his being at large without security hazardous to the community may be proved by evidence of general repute or otherwise.
5. Where two or more persons have been associated together in the matter under inquiry, they may be dealt with in the same or separate inquiries as the Magistrate shall think just.
6. The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such inquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this Chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.

Provided that where any person has been kept in detention pending such inquiry, the proceeding against that person, unless terminated earlier, shall stand terminated on the expiry of a period of six months of such detention.

7. Where any direction is made under sub-section (6) permitting the continuance of proceedings, the Sessions Judge may, on an application made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction if he is satisfied that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse.”

Explanation Of CrPC Section 116

Section 116(1)

Under Section 116(1), where an order under Section 111 has been read or explained to the person present in Court, or where any person appears or is brought before a Magistrate in obedience to a summons or warrant issued under Section 113, the Magistrate shall make such inquiry as he thinks necessary to satisfy himself of the correctness of the information on which the order under Section 111 has been made. This inquiry seeks to check the veracity of the accusations.

Section 116(2)

As per Section 116(2), the inquiry shall be conducted, so far as the circumstances permit, in accordance with the provisions applicable to the trial of summons cases.

Section 116(3)

Section 116(3) provides that even before the conclusion of the inquiry, the Magistrate may order the execution of a bond for keeping the peace or otherwise for showing good behaviour if he feels that the situation may deteriorate into a breach of peace, disturb public tranquillity, or commit an offence, or to protect public safety. Such a direction must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. If the person fails to execute the bond, the Magistrate may commit the person to custody till he executes the bond or till the inquiry is concluded. The proviso provides the following:

• No one can be directed to furnish a bond for good behaviour unless the proceedings have been specifically brought under Sections 108, 109 or 110 of CrPC
• The conditions of the bond shall not be more onerous than those prescribed under Section 111.

Section 116(4)

Under Section 116(4) evidence of general reputation may be admitted so as to prove that the person is a habitual offender, or so desperate and dangerous that allowing him to be at large without any security would be a danger to the community.

Section 116(5)

Section 116(5) endows the Magistrate with the discretion of conducting joint or separate inquiries in the case two or more persons are associated with the subject matter under inquiry. The discretion is based on the grounds of what is just and fair according to the situation.

Section 116(6)

Section 116(6) states that the inquiry must be concluded within six months from the date of its commencement. In case the inquiry is not concluded within the said period, the proceedings will stand automatically terminated unless there are special reasons recorded in writing by the Magistrate for continuing the proceedings beyond six months.

If any person has been detained during the inquiry, the proceeding against him shall be discontinued within six months from the date of detention of that person, unless concluded earlier. This time-bound requirement prevents indefinite detention during the course of inquiry.

Section 116(7)

Section 116(7) provides the aggrieved person with relief where the Magistrate orders that the proceedings be continued beyond six months. He may apply to the Sessions Judge to vacate the order of the Magistrate if it is found that such direction is not based on special reasons or that it appears perverse.

Practical Implications Of Section 116

• Protection of Public Order: Section 116 is preventative in nature and seeks to protect the public order by appropriately dealing with individuals who might pose threat to the public order. It gives the Magistrates the power to take prompt measures to prevent any breach of peace, thus upholding public tranquillity.
• Safeguard against Arbitrary Detention: The provision also provides for safeguards to prevent abuse of power. There is a mandatory recording of reasons in writing before demanding a bond, setting limits on the conditions of the bond, and imposing time limits for the inquiry into detention. All these will protect the arbitrary infringements of an individual's rights.
• Judicial Oversight and Remedies: The option to appeal to the Sessions Judge under Section 116(7) makes sure that there is a higher level of judicial scrutiny available over any possible excessive use of power.
• Evidentiary Flexibility: Evidentiary flexibility provided under Section 116(4) allows the Magistrate to have a better opinion in deciding the character of a person and his potential threat to the society.
• Challenges in Practice: The provision for a six-month time limit may pose challenges in complex cases where evidence collection and hearings may be delayed on practical grounds.

Landmark Judgements On CrPC Section 116

Aldanish Rein vs. State of Nct of Delhi & Anr. (2018)

The Court in this case examined the use of Section 116 of CrPC by Special Executive Magistrates (SEMs). The Court held the following:

• SEM would prima facie consider whether an order of judicial remand is necessary prior to passing an order under Section 116(3). The Court observed that the SEMs are mechanically sending people to judicial custody without due consideration for the need for remand and the appropriate period.
• Section 116(3) should not be used for prolonged detention. The Court held that the ‘preventive arrest’ provisions like Sections 107 and 151 CrPC, which often lead to the use of Section 116(3), are only for situations of grave emergency, where there are imminent threats to law and order. These provisions should not be used to detain individuals for a long period (such as two weeks or more) to prevent potential crimes.
• SEMs must determine the surety amount required under Section 116(3) depending on the circumstances of a case. It should take into consideration the financial capacity of the detained individual. The Court observed that SEMs were setting hefty amounts of surety, which became impossible for many, particularly those belonging to economically weaker sections of society, to provide the requisite bond and surety, resulting in prolonged detention.

Bugdad S/O Noor Mohamma vs. State of MP (2022)

In this case, the Court held the following regarding Section 116 of CrPC:

• The Court held that an order to execute an interim bond under Section 116(3) can be passed only after the commencement and before the completion of the inquiry under Section 116(1).
• The Court held that an order for imprisonment for the remaining bond period under Section 116 should be passed only after investigating whether the applicant has breached the bond conditions.

Rajesh Prasad Tanti & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal (2022)

In this case, the Court held that Section 116 had not been strictly complied with. The Court held that:

• The Magistrates were not conducting inquiries as required by Section 116(1).
• The Court also declared that the Magistrates were not adhering to the 6 months time limit for inquiries as provided by Section 116(6). Instead, the Magistrates were extending the detention period of the petitioners without justifying the detention.
• It was held that the proviso clause of Section 116(6), which provided that proceedings against a detained person “shall stand terminated” after six months, was being ignored.

The Court found that both the police and the Magistrates seem to drift towards detaining the petitioners rather than following due processes.

T.G. Anoop vs. State of Kerala (2024)

In this case, the Court held that the order in question was passed without following the procedure provided by Section 116, even as nearly as possible, and therefore has to be set aside. The Court held the following:

• Section 116(2) stipulates that an inquiry should be carried out in a manner similar to a summons case trial. This includes that the prosecution and the accused must be heard based on evidence.
• In the instant case, the lower court did not give the accused an opportunity to present his defence or to be heard after the examination of the prosecution witness. It merely made a record of the petitioner's 313 statement and thereafter proceeded to pronounce the order.
• The Court pointed out that the phrase “as nearly as may be practicable” in Section 116(2) should be construed to guarantee that the essential elements of a summons trial were followed.

The Court accordingly remanded the matter to the Sub Divisional Magistrate Court for reconsideration after following the procedure set out under Section 116 of the CrPC with a reasoned order.

Conclusion

Section 116 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 provides an additional tool to maintain public order by enabling preventive action against whose acts or omissions may tend to disturb public tranquillity. Although preventive in nature, Section 116 incorporates adequate legal safeguards to avoid abuse of powers and to provide individuals with recourse in case of any possible misuse of power. Therefore, Section 116 acts as an important tool in the aim of the criminal justice system to prevent offences and maintain peace in society.