1978 Supreme(Pat) 15
PATNA HIGH COURT
Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, J.
Surendra Singh
Versus
Birendra Kumar Singh
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2289 of 1977 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 10, 1978
The inquiry under section 116 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 commences when the person proceeded against appears in Court in pursuance of the notice served on him and the Magistrate proceeds to inquire into the truth of the information.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 107, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117 - SECTION 107 - INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS - SECTION 116 (1) - COMMENCEMENT OF INQUIRY - SECTION 116 (3) - AD INTERIM BOND - VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY - SECTION 117 (1) - COMMENCEMENT OF INQUIRY - SECTION 117 (3) - AD INTERIM BOND - VALIDITY AND PROPRIETY.
Fact of the Case:
A proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code), was drawn up against the petitioners, who were the second party to the proceeding. The petitioners challenged the initiation of the proceeding and the order directing them to execute an ad interim bond under section 116 (3) of the Code.
Finding of the Court:
1. The initiation of the proceeding under section 107 of the Code was held to be valid as the substance of information was not vague and the petitioners' action, though claimed to be lawful, could still be a wrongful act if it led to a breach of peace. 2. The inquiry under section 116 (1) of the Code was held to have commenced when the parties appeared in Court in pursuance of the notice served on them and the Magistrate proceeded to inquire into the truth of the information. 3. The order under section 116 (3) of the Code was held to be invalid and improper as the Magistrate did not record any reasons for considering the petitioners to be the ones who should be bound down by an ad interim bond.
Issues: 1. Whether the initiation of the proceeding under section 107 of the Code was valid. 2. Whether the inquiry under section 116 (1) of the Code had commenced. 3. Whether the order under section 116 (3) of the Code was valid and proper.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The initiation of a proceeding under section 107 of the Code is required only where the breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned on account of a wrongful act on the part of one or the other party to the proceeding. 2. The inquiry under section 116 (1) of the Code commences when the person proceeded against appears in Court in pursuance of the notice served on him and the Magistrate proceeds to inquire into the truth of the information. 3. For the purpose of putting a person, proceeded against, to the term of executing an ad interim bond, the Magistrate must consider and be satisfied that immediate measures are necessary for prevention of breach of the peace. The Magistrate is required to record his reasons in writing for taking such a step.
Final Decision: The initiation of the proceeding under section 107 of the Code was held to be valid, but the order dated 11th August, 1977, directing the petitioners to execute an ad interim bond under section 116 (3) of the Code was quashed.
Shiveshwar Prasad Sinha, J.
1. This matter has been referred to Divisi on bench by a learned Single Judge by his order dated 12th October, 1977.
2. The petition is for quashing the proceeding under section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as the Code), drawn up by order dated 18th July, 1977 and also for quashing the order dated 11th august, 1977 by which the petitioners have been asked to execute ad interim bond under section 116 (3) of the Code. The petitioners are the second party to the said proceeding under section 107 of the Code.
3. The relevant facts are that there is a Private Limited Company known by the name of M/s. Veena Theatre Private Limited having its registered office at patna. The petitioners as also opposite-party no.1 are the shareholders of the said company. Opposite-party no.2 is one of the employees of the company. It appears that a tussle is going on between the shareholders for taking over the management of the campany, opposite-party no.1 has filed a civil suit and also an application for injunction to stop the other party from removing him from the post of Managing Director of the Company.
4. On 2nd July, 1977 as also on 4th July, 1977 opposite-party no.2, digamber Chaudhary, lodged, a sanha at Police Station Kotwali, Patna making several allegations of high-handed behaviour by the petitioners (Member of the second party ). The police on making enquiry to the allegations submitted a report to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Patna, who passed an order on the 8th July, 1977 for issue of notice to both the parties to show cause as to why proceedings under section 107 of the Code should not be drawn against them. The parties were asked to show cause by the 13th July, 1977. It appears that in pursuance of the said notice both the parties filed show cause and were also heard. The Sub-divisional Magistrate then passed an order in terms of section 111 of the Code, on the 18th July, 1977 initiating proceedings under section 107 of the Code and calling upon both the parties to show cause as to why they should not execute ad interim bond in terms of section (3) of the Code of Rs.1,000 each for keeping peace for a period of one year.
5. The substance of information mentioned in the said notice was that the members of the second party were giving various types of threats to the members of the first party, such as exploding bombs in the premises of the Veena Cinema, a business run by the said company. It had also transpired that a man had been recently murdered within the presincts of the said cinema house and that there was good deal of tension between the parties for capturing or retaining the management of the company. For these reasons it appeared to the learned magihtrate that a serious tension was there, threatening breach of the peace between the parties.
6. Both the parties were asked to show cause by the 23rd of July, 1977. In the meantime a police report was also received by the learned Sub-divisional magistrate for action under section 116 (3) against the members of the second party. In pursuance of the said notice both the parties filed their show cause and they were heard. Each party tried to justify his action on the ground of being legally entitled to conduct the management of the company. Each party complained that the other had no locus standi to manage the compan y. The petitioners, namely, the members of the second party, however, submitted that in absence of any fresh material to prove any emergency, no action under section 116 (3) of the Code was warranted against their party.
7. The learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, after perusing the cause shown by the parties and after hearing them, passed an order dated 11th August, 1977 calling upon the members of the second party to execute no interim bond of rs.1,000 each for maintaining peace "till the final order is passed in the main proceeding under section 107 Cr. P. C. "
8. The second party being