Section 120b IPC – Criminal Conspiracy Definition And Punishment

Introduction

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an offense. The mere meeting of mind of the parties to commit an offense is a conspiracy.

Initial Position

Originally, the IPC consisted of only two provisions for punishing the offense of conspiracy. First, the provision of section 107, which made a conspiracy by the way of abetment, punishable. The others are specific provisions involving offenses which are included conspiracies to commit them. As for example,  Section 310 (in the definition of thugs), Section 400 (belonging to a gang of dacoits), Section 401 (belonging to a gang of thieves), etc.

Current Position

The position, however, changed with the Indian Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913 (8 of 1913).

Chapter V-A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) deals with ‘Criminal Conspiracy’.  Legislature inserted it in the aforesaid amendment. It consists of two sections 120A and 120B. Section 120A gives the definition of criminal conspiracy. Section 120B deals with punishment for committing the offense of criminal conspiracy.

The law of conspiracy covers the following:

(i) Conspiracy as a Substantive offense i.e. conspiracy is in itself an offense (ch V-A: ss 120A and 120B);

(ii) Conspiracy as a form of abetment (ch V: s107 Secondly);

(iii) Conspiracy to wage, attempt to, or abet war against the Government of India (ch VI: s 121A), and

(iv) Involvement in specific offenses (ch XVI: ss 310 and 311; ch XVII: ss 400, 401 and 402).

Criminal Conspiracy

An offense occurs when:

a) Two or more persons agree to do an illegal act.

b) Two or more persons cause to be done an illegal act.

c) If two or more persons agree to do a legal act by illegal means.

d) Two or more persons cause to be done a legal act by illegal means.

An agreement is made between two or more persons to commit any one of the aforesaid offenses, is called criminal conspiracy.

Moreover, an act done in pursuance of this agreement is part of the criminal conspiracy. Hence, it is immaterial that the act done is the ultimate object or merely incidental to the object.

Thereby an agreement for committing an offense, two or more persons agree to do an illegal act or cause to be done an illegal act is amounting to criminal conspiracy even though the object of the agreement is not fully accomplished.

Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)

A plain reading of s 120A gives ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy as follows;

• There should be two or more persons.
• There should be an agreement between themselves.
• The agreement must be to do or cause to be done:

(a) an illegal act; or

(b) a legal act by unlawful means.

Moreover, in the case of a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, the mere agreement is sufficient to impose liability; however, in the case of conspiracy, to do a legal act by illegal means, there ought to be some overt act which is committed by parties to the agreement.

Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy

Sec 120B deals with the punishment of criminal conspiracy. This section is in two parts i.e. sec 120B (1) and 120B (2).  Any person, whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense is punishable under this section.

Sec 120B (1) deals with heinous and grievous offenses. However, sec 120B (2) deals with minor criminal offenses.

Firstly, we will discuss sec 120B(1) and then sec 120B (2).

Section 120B (1) of the Indian Penal Code

Particularly, this section deals with the conspiracy of three types of offenses. They are as follows:

• an offense in which punishment is death;
• an offense in which punishment is life imprisonment;
• or an offense in which punishment is rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards.

According to Section 120B (1), when there’s no expressed provision regarding the conspiracy of aforesaid offenses in the code then this section is applicable. Further, it says that the parties who commit any of the aforesaid offenses are punishable in the same manner as the abetment of such offenses.

Section 120B (2) of the Indian Penal Code

This section deals with the criminal conspiracy of remaining offenses. Generally, it covers minor criminal offenses. In other words, we can say it covers the conspiracy of those offenses which is punishable with less than 2-years of imprisonment. Thus, the section imposes nominal punishment i.e. imprisonment for the term not exceeding 6 months.

Thus, section 120B (2) says that a person who is the party in criminal conspiracy other than section  120B  (1), shall be punished with

• either imprisonment for the term of not exceeding 6 months
• or with fine or both

Conclusion

Any agreement between two or more person to commit an offense is a criminal conspiracy. For the purpose of punishment, s 120B divides criminal conspiracies into two classes. A party to a conspiracy to commit a serious offense, is, in the absence of an express provision in the IPC, punished in the same manner as if he had abetted the offense. Conspiracies to commit any other offenses punishable with imprisonment for a term up to six months with or without fine or both.

Section 448 of IPC- Punishment for House Trespass

Section 448- Punishment for House trespass-

“Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.”

Before going to House trespass, we need to know what is trespass. And, in what circumstances trespass is criminal trespass. Ordinarily, trespass is a civil wrong for which a defendant has the right to sue. Lord Macaulay, defined ” trespass is every usurpation, however slight, of dominion over property’. But only when it includes criminal intention, it becomes Criminal trespass. Whereas, Section 441 on Indian Penal Code defines criminal trespass.

Section 441- Criminal Trespass

“Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

The only difference between trespass and criminal trespass is Intention. A trespass with an intention to commit an offense is criminal trespass. The object of Section 441 is to protect the possession of the property. This section is concerned with possession, but not with ownership Sahebrao Kisan Jadhav Vs State of Maharashtra[1].  It is not relevant if the person has entered the property lawfully or unlawfully. Lawfully entering a property and staying there unlawfully with an intention to commit an offense, is criminal trespass.

Further, Section 447 lays down the punishment for Criminal trespass. Punishment for Criminal Trespass is imprisonment of up to 3 months or fine up to Rs.500 or both.

Read Also: Top 10 Criminals of India – You Don’t Know

Section 442- House trespass

“Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “house-trespass”.

The offense of house-trespass is an aggravated form of criminal trespass. The House trespass must have all the ingredients of criminal trespass. moreover, in addition to the element of criminal trespass, the house-trespass occurs at entering or remaining on the property. Here, Property includes any building tent, vessel, place of worship or any place for Human Dwelling.

The building here constitutes any place which can give protection to any human or any person dwelling inside it. Or any property placed inside it. The mere surrounding of any place by fencing or any wire of any opens space does not construe building. And trespass upon such space is not House-trespass.

However, in order to attract House trespass, an illegal entry upon the premises is necessary. A person does not commit house-trespass if he enters the property with permission or consent.

Rajmogali Ashayya Arkal and others. vs. Govind Hanumantu Nandlal and Anr.[2]

Punishment

As stated earlier, House trespass is an aggravated form of criminal trespass. So the punishment is also more than ordinary trespass. Punishment for House trespass can extend up to one year or fine up to 1000 or both. Moreover, this offense is compoundable, bailable and cognizable :

• Compoundable Offence

Those offenses in which compromise can be done at the instance of the party, are compoundable in nature. Hence, a compromise is available in the offense of House trespass. If the aggrieved party gives consent, without any force or undue influence, to compromise. In such a case, they can avoid a trial.

• Cognizable offense

In Cognizable offense, police have the authority to arrest the person without any warrant. Also, police can start an investigation without the order of the court. Here, police can arrest a person on the mere complaint of aggrieved and/or founding accused on the property. Police do not require any warrant or order from the court.

• Bailable Offence

In an offense, police have the authority to release an offender on bail. The offense of House-trespass in enumerated under the list of Bailable offences. Hence, a person accused of House-trespass has the option to get bail. One can provide for security to get the bail.

Conclusion

A person commits House-trespass upon entering any property of others with a criminal intention. For entering, it is not necessary to enter completely, but any part of the body is sufficient to construe House-trespass. The Offence is Compoundable as it is easy to compromise outside the court and the nature of the crime is less serious as it does not harm the body of the individual. Whereas, Cognizable as the police requires to act as soon as possible on the complaint. If the police have to wait for the warrant it will be too late.

Compoundable and Non Compoundable offence in India

Introduction

Lawmakers classified offence into three categories on the basis of their nature, taking the reference of policy-making. These categories are: Firstly, cognizable offence and non-cognizable offence, secondly, bailable offence and non-bailable offence, and thirdly, compoundable and non-compoundable offence.

In actual, when a layman tries to understand the philosophy behind these terms he may think that basis of these classifications is based on seriousness or gravity of the offence, or on the gravity of the punishment.

Yes! He might be correct but not as a whole for the classification isn’t limited to these perspectives. It is the matter of policy-making to categorize the offences.  The sole purpose is to smoothen the criminal justice system.

To understand the scenario, we first look at the bare provisions regarding the first two categories in brief. Further, we’ll discuss the Compoundable and Non-Compoundable offences in details.

Bailable and Non-Bailable offences

According to Section 2(a) of CrPC:-

‘Bailable offence’ means an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule, or which is bailable by any other law for the time being in force.  ‘Non-bailable offence’ means any other offences. It clearly demarcates if an act which is an offence under the IPC is bailable or not, written in First Schedule. Whatever may be the nature of the offence, if the first schedule mentions it as bailable then it’s bailable. We can see in Section 147 of IPC, the offence of ‘rioting’ which sounds grave but it is a bailable offence, though it is cognizable.

Cognizable and Non-Cognizable offences

According to Section 2(c) of CrPC:-

‘Cognizable offence’ means an offence for which a police officer may in accordance with first schedule arrest without a warrant. We can see Section 466 of IPC, which says, Offence is Forgery of a record of a Court of Justice or of a Registrar of Births, etc., kept by a public servant. Although, it is grave and punishable with the imprisonment for 7 years and fine. It is ‘non-cognizable’ offence while it’s non-bailable in nature.

Compoundable and Non-Compoundable offences

A wrong against society and the state is a serious crime. Therefore, any compromise between the accused and the individual victim of the crime should not absolve the accused from criminal responsibility while some wrongs are of a private nature and are relatively less serious, CrPC considers it expedient to recognize some of them as compoundable offences while others as non-compoundable.

Compounding of Offences Under Ipc

‘Compoundable offences’ are those offences which are relatively less grave in nature in which compromise can be made between the individual and the accused while on the other hand ‘non-compoundable offences’ are those in which compromise can’t be made because of it affects society at large.

The compoundable offences are mostly non-cognizable but the vice-versa is not correct. Section 320 of CrPC deals with the general scheme of the compounding of offence.

Section 320 of CrPC

Offences mentioned in the table provided in section 320 of CrPC are of compoundable in nature. By the way of compounding the offence, the trial comes to end without complete disposal of the case.

Section 320 of CrPC reads as follows: 320(1) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the Table next following may be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that Table. In the table, 21 penal offences are listed, some of these are Sec 298,323,334 of IPC etc. Sec 334 of IPC is an offence of ‘voluntarily causing hurt on provocation’. Sec 323 of IPC is an offence of ‘voluntarily causing hurt’.

320(2) The offences punishable under the sections of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offence is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of the table. In this table, 36 other penal offences are listed.

Briefly, Offences enumerated under section 320(2) are compoundable with the prior permission of the court. Offences under section 320(1)  are compoundable as a matter of right.

Special or local laws and ambit of section 320 CrPC

According to the scheme of the section, all offences under the special or local laws are simply non-compoundable. Further,  it is left to the wisdom of the legislature to decide as a matter of policy whether and to what extent offences under such laws should be compoundable.

Offences under IPC other than enumerated in Section 320 of CrPC

In the end, section 320(9) of CrPC makes it quite clear that offences not provided in this section are not compoundable. It means there is no effect of compromise on criminal liability of the offence other than this section.

However, the Supreme Court gave permission for compounding the offence under section 307,IPC (attempt to commit murder) in ‘Mahesh Chand v State of Rajasthan’ [1]. The Supreme Court in ‘Ram Lal v State of J&K’ [2], overruled its decision and held that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compoundable at all.

In ‘B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana'[3], Supreme Court held that in a situation of proceedings on the basis of non-compoundable offences like Section 498-A and 406, the High Court could quash them under Section 482 CrPC.

In ‘Gian Singh v State of Punjab’, [4], the Supreme Court upholding the decision of ‘B.S. Joshi v State of Haryana'[3], and observed that offences arising out of family disputes or matrimony relating to dowry, etc in which wrong is basically private in nature and parties have resolved their disputes, High Court may quash the proceeding under Section 482 of the Code. This power is different from the power of a criminal court to compound the offences.

Conclusion

Offences in which compromise can be made are compoundable otherwise non-compoundable. In non-compoundable offences, Court may compound the offence i.e. allowing the compromise. Basically, the offences in which criminal liability seizes at the stance of compromise are compoundable offences while criminal liability never comes to an end although compromise has been done between the parties are called non-compoundable offences.

However, in determining the quantum of sentence court considers the fact of compromise. All others special and local laws are non-compoundable if the option of compromise is not expressly provided in the statute.

---

1. 1990 Supp (1) SCC 681

2. (1999) 2 SCC 213

3. (2003) 4 SCC 675

4. (2012) 10 SCC 303

Section 147 of the IPC – Rioting

Introduction to Section 147 IPC

Section 147 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) provides Punishment for rioting. It states that whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

What constitutes to rioting has been defined in section 146 of the IPC as whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in the prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offense of rioting. Which simply means that when a group of people come together unlawfully and perform anything (in order to achieve a common goal) using force and violence, every member of that group is guilty for committing the offence of rioting and they could be punished with a term extending to two years, or with fine, or with both. Though the word ‘force’ is defined under section 349 of IPC, violence has not been defined specifically in the Indian Penal Code. But violence is a much wider concept than force because it includes force not only against other people but also against inanimate objects like property.

The offense under section 147 of IPC is cognizable (the police has the authority to arrest the person without a warrant), bailable (bail is a matter of right) and non-compoundable (the Victim and the accused can not reach a compromise to settle the case, a full trial has to be conducted in the court). Accused persons can exclusively be punished under this section even if they could not be convicted for the offense they committed while pursuing the common purpose.

This is the case with simple rioting, but when deadly weapons are used in riots, the punishment varies. Punishment under section 147 relates to only the cases of simple rioting, punishment for rioting with deadly weapons has been separately prescribed under section 148 of the IPC. Section 148 of IPC states that whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offense, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Merely the use of force by a group of people does not render them liable for rioting. If the common purpose is not illegal, then the use of force by the assembly will not amount to rioting. And if force was being used by the assembly for a lawful purpose but a sudden quarrel broke out without any pre-planned manner and eventually led to violence, it would not amount to rioting. Generally, it happens that people or spectators gather around the place where the rioting is happening. These spectators should not be considered to be the members of the unlawful assembly. However, if someone is found to be marching with the assembly for quite a distance, they would have to prove their innocence under section 106 of the Evidence Act.

England’s King Bench of the High Court of Justice  defined in the decision of Field v Receiver of Metropolitan Police, [1907]2 KB 859, the 5 elements of rioting to be:

1. The group should have a minimum of three people
2. There should be a common purpose
3. The Inception of that common purpose
4. The intent to help one another by force against any person who opposes them in the execution of their common purpose
5. At least one person of reasonable firmness should be alarmed by the display of this force or violence

Case laws

In Vijay Singh Mankotia v. State of Himachal Pradesh, more than 200 people of a political party were gathered on a public highway for a ‘dharna’ against the state government.  This caused unlawful restraints to others who were supposed to travel on that highway. The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that it amounted to public nuisance and rioting. A prima facie case was made out against the petitioners for the commission of offenses that are punishable under section 147 of the IPC.

References-

1. Indian Penal Code
2. Code of Criminal Procedure
3. The Evidence Act
4. http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/Riot.aspx

Article 377 IPC – All about Section 377 in India

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Section 306 IPC Abetment of Suicide

Scope of Section 306 of IPC

In India, suicide is not an offense while attempt to suicide is a punishable offense under Section 309 of IPC and so is Abetment of Suicide as mentioned under Section 306 of IPC. In this article, we will be emphasizing on Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It states that any person who abets or assists a person in the commission of suicide shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine[1]. Section 306 is often read with section 107 which describes the term “Abetment”.

Meaning of “Abetment”:

A person abets the commission of activity when:

1. He/ She instigates any person to do a thing;
2. He/ She engages with 1 or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing or if an act or illegal act takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy; and
3. He/ She intentionally aides the doing of that thing by any act or illegal omission.

Here the 1st clause of section 107 refers to a person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful concealment of material fact which he is supposed to disclose voluntarily causes or procures a thing to be done is said to instigate the doing of the thing.

The 2^nd and the 3^rd clause of the section in simple words signify that any person either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything to facilitate the commission of the act is said to aid the doing of the act. The offense of Abetment of Suicide is a non-bailable and cognizable offense which can be tried by the Court of Session.

The conditions mentioned for this offense seem a little vague and are prone to misuse so there have been various cases which have time and again amended the provisions and laid down guidelines for the application of this section. Here are a few landmark judgments to further illustrate in Section 306.

Important Case Laws in Section 306:

1.) Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State( Govt. of NCT of Delhi):

In this case, the Court dealt with the meaning of the term “instigation” and “goading”. The Court gave its opinion that the mala fide intention to provoke, incite or encourage the commission of an act by a person is mandatory. Each person’s suicidality pattern is different from others thus, it is not possible to lay down a straight-jacket formula while dealing such cases.[2] Each case must be decided on the basis of its own facts and circumstances. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the case decided by the Court gave a clear indication that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC, mens rea is an indispensable ingredient. It also requires the act to play an active part in pushing the deceased into such a position that he sees no option other than suicide.

 2. )  State of West Bengal v Orilal Jaiswal & Another[3]:

The Court gave out a caution that all Courts should be meticulous while assessing the facts and circumstances of the cases and also the evidence adduced in the trail for finding whether cruelty meted out to the victim persuaded one to end one’s life by committing suicide. If the Court finds out that the victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to the petulance and difference in domestic life an individual is ordinarily exposed to, the Court would not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused should be held guilty.

3.)  Ramesh Kumar v State of Chattisgarh[4]:

In this case, in a dispute between the husband and wife, the husband uttered to the wife, “You are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like”. As a result of this statement, the wife committed suicide. The Court interpreted the term “instigation “ again and declared that in order to satisfy the requirement of instigation, though the actual words must be used for such a consequence, yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. A word uttered out of anger or emotion cannot be termed as “instigation”.

4.) Manikandan v State:

This has proved to be an imperative judgment in the history of landmark judgments. The Madras High Court held that merely being named in a Suicide Note does not invoke Section 306 IPC. The contents of the note need proper scrutinization to find out whether the accused falls within the ambit of abetment as mentioned under section 306. The Court further declared that “it is not the wish and willingness nor the desire of the victim to die, it must be the wish of the accused, it is the intention on the part of the accused that the victim should die that matters much. There must be a positive act on the part of the accused.”[5]

Conclusion

We thus see that this particular Section of IPC is quite sensitive and has to be used responsibly. The cases portray the intricacies involved in such penal provisions which can be misappropriated in the absence of stern directions from the Court. The decision of a weak-minded or a woman of frail mentality should not be misunderstood as abetment. Sometimes the victim might take the decision of committing suicide unaccompanied by any act or instigation. Thus it would not be fair to blame another person for such foolishness.

[1] Indian Penal Code, s 306

[2] Chitresh Kumar Chopra v State(Government of NCT of Delhi) [2009] 16 SCC 605

[3] [1994] 1 SCC 73

[4] [2001] 9 SCC 618

[5] Manikandan v State [2016] SC 316

Section 144 IPC The Code of Criminal Procedure

The Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC ) is the principal enactment on the procedure for administration of substantive criminal law in India. It was established in 1973 and came into power on 1 April 1974.

It gives the machinery to the examination of crime, apprehension of suspected criminals, gathering of evidence, assurance of guilt or innocence of the accused individual and the determination of punishment of the guilty. Furthermore, it additionally deals with open public nuisance, prevention of offences and maintenance of wife, child, and parents.

What is Section 144 IPC

Section 144 of the Criminal Code Procedure states the power to issue an order in dire instances of nuisance or apprehended risk.

As indicated by 141-149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the maximum punishment for engaging for taking part in rioting is rigorous imprisonment for 3 years or/and fine. Each individual from an unlawful assembly can be considered responsible for wrongdoing committed by the group. Blocking an officer attempting to disperse an unlawful gathering may pull in further punishment.

In about 1861, Officer Raj-Ratna E.F. Deboo IPS were the creator and draftsman of section 144, which lessened by and large crime in that time in the state of Baroda. He was perceived for his drive and granted a gold medal by the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda for setting up Section 144 and lessening by and large crime rate.

The section was imposed for the first time in 1861 by the British Raj, and thereafter turned into a critical instrument to stop every single nationalist protest amid the Indian freedom movement, and its utilization in independent India stays controversial as not much has changed. Usually used to avert freedom of expression by quiet protests or demonstrations, even the law does not utilize the terms, however, it mentions “riot”. Section 144 applies amid mobs and election continuing after the announcement of the election.

144 Section Rules and Conditions

(1) In situations where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or some other Executive Magistrate exceptionally enabled by the State Government for this sake, there is adequate ground for continuing under this section and prompt prevention or speedy remedy is alluring, such Magistrate may, by a written order expressing the material facts of the case and served in the way given by section 134, guide any individual to abstain from a specific act or to take certain order concerning certain property in his ownership or under his management, if such Magistrate thinks about that such course is probably going to prevent, or will in general avert, deterrent, inconvenience or damage to any individual lawfully employed, or threat to human life, health or security, or disturbance of public peacefulness, or an uproar, or an affray.

(2) An order under this section may, in instances of crisis or in situations where the conditions don’t concede to the serving in due time of a notice upon the individual against whom the order is coordinated, be passed ex parte.

(3) An order under this section might be coordinated to a specific individual, or to people dwelling in a specific place or area, or to the general population by and large when frequenting or visiting a specific place or area.

(4) No order under this section will stay in power for over two months from the creation thereof: Provided that, if the State Government thinks so to improve the situation preventing peril to human life, health or security or for keeping an uproar or any affray, it might, by notification, coordinate that an order made by a Magistrate under this section will stay in force for such further period not surpassing a half year from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, yet for such order, lapsed, as it might determine in the said notification.

(5) Any Magistrate may, either on his own or on the use of any individual aggrieved, repeal 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 or on the use of any individual aggrieved, repeal or change any order made by it under the stipulation to subsection (4).

(7) Where an application under subsection (5) or subsection (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, by and large, will bear to the applicant an early chance of showing up before him or it, either face to face or by pleader and indicating cause against the order; and if the Magistrate or the State Government, all things considered, rejects the application completely or to a limited extent, he or it will record in writing the reasons behind so doing.

Who enforces Section 144 IPC

The orders for Imposing section 144 have been given to Executive Magistrate when there is a crisis situation.

Limitations enforced when Sec 144 IPC is imposed

• The urgency of the circumstance and the power is to be utilized for keeping up public harmony and peace.
• Private rights might be temporarily superseded when there is a contention between public interest and private rights
• Questions of title to properties or entitlements to rights or disputes of civil nature are not open for adjudication in a procedure under section 144 of Criminal Procedure Code.

How the requests of Sec 144 should be passed?

It must be in written form. Prior to enforcing Section 144, Executive Magistrate needs to guarantee whether there is a need to enforce section 144. For this, he/she have to request material facts.

Duration of Order

• Section 144 would be valid just for a time of two months.
• The state government can expand the validity for two months and maximum up to a half year.
• It can be withdrawn any time of time if the circumstance turns normal.

Section 144 IPC at Kerala

The Pathanamthitta district authority in Kerala has forced Section 144 of the CrPC in Sabarimala and close-by regions ahead of the Chithira Avittom Pooja. The hill shrine in Sabarimala was opened for devotees on November 5 and 6. Prohibitory orders will be set up until November 26.
In the wake of violent protest amid the last monthly pooja, the state police have likewise chosen to increase deployment of forces in Sabarimala area.
Then again, state police keep on taking action against protesters in Pamba and Nilakkal. As per the most recent data, 3,701 individuals have been captured in 543 cases by the police.

At the point when the temple was opened for devotees, at least five ladies attempted to visit the main place of worship. In any case, owing to huge protests at the temple and the police’s failure to give adequate security, the ladies couldn’t enter the shrine.

In conclusion, the article aimed at discovering all the aspects of Section 144 of the CrPC. This Section can be misused at times for political gains and can restrain the freedom of movement of people. Therefore, this section before being imposed should be deliberated upon and if imposed, it should be done with the utmost care and precision.