SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1975 Supreme(Pat) 95

PATNA HIGH COURT
C.N. TIWARY, J.
Bindeshwar Singh & Ors.- Petitioner
Vs.
Rambaran Singh.- O.P.
Cr. Rev. No. 75 of 1975
Decided On : 15.4.1975

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioners: Messrs Hari Narain Singh & Raghubansh Singh.
For the opposite party: Sri Shok Haran Singh.

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, Sec.116 (3) & Sec. 397 (2)-Delay in disposal of the application u/s 116 (3)-Order of execution of ad interim bond till the conclusion of the enquiry is an abuse of the process of the Court-Order passed is not an interlocutory order and has an element of finality-Sec. 397 (2) is not applicable. (Para 4 & 5)

C. N. Tiwary, J.

This revision application is directed against an order, dated 31.12.1974 passed under section 116 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'), by which the petitioners have been ordered to execute bond of Rs. 1000/- each with sureties of the like amount each for keeping the peace till the' conclusion of the inquiry in a proceeding under section 107 of the Code, which is pending against them.

2. It appears that petitioner no.2 Chandrashekhar Pd. Singh filed a complaint before the - Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur on 20.7.74 against the opposite party-Rambaran Singh and some other members of his family alleging that on 19.7.74 at 4 P.M. the accused persons started cutting earth in the field of the petitioners, in which maize crops were standing and when the petitioner no. 2 Chandrashekhar Pd. Singh and petitioner no.7 Anil Kumar Singh went to stop them from cutting the earth the members of the opposite party along with other accused persons brutally assaulted them with Farsa, Lathi etc. The Chief Judicial Magistrate sent the complaint petition filed by petitioner no.2 to the Officer incharge Kahus police station for instituting case. Another complaint was filed by the wife' of opposite party Rambaran Singh on 20.7.74 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hajipur alleging that the petitioners were cutting the earth near the Osara of the opposite party and when she and her son Madan Prasad Singh went to stop them from cutting earth the petitioners assaulted them. The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against petitioners no. 1, 2 and 5. Both the cases are pending. On the same day (20.7.74) opposite party Rambaran Singh filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Hajipur for action under section 107 of the Code against the 7 petitioners alleging that the petitioners had assaulted him, his wife and son and that they were contemplating to damage his crops and to take away tobacco from his house. The Sub-divisional Magistrate without getting the matter enquired into started a proceeding under section 107 of the Code against the petitioners by his order dated 20.7.74 and directed the petitioners to show cause by 1.8.74 as to why they should not be directed to execute bond of Rs.1000/- with one surety of the like amount each to maintain peace.

3. On 26.7.74 the opposite party filed a petition before the Sub-divisional Magistrate for taking bond under section 116 (3) of the Code from the petitioners to maintain peace till the conclusion of the inquiry. On 1.8.74 a petition was filed on behalf of petitioner no. 2 Chandrashekhar Pd. Singh stating inter alia that there was not the slightest apprehension of breach of the peace at the hands of the petitioners and local enquiry by any authority might reveal the whole truth. It was further said that one Surendra Singh, a nephew of opposite party Rambaran Singh was working as an Assistant in the Vaishali Collectorate office and that he had got the proceeding under section 107 of the Code started against the petitioners on a mere petition filed by the opposite party without verification of the truth of the allegations made therein. The prayer of the opposite party for taking bond from the petitioners under section 116 (3) of the Code was said to be uncalled for. It was prayed that the proceeding should be dropped. This petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate with the observation that no question of dropping the proceeding could arise till all the petitioners had appeared. On 26.11.74 another petition was filed on behalf of the opposite party in continuation of his petition, dated 26.7.74 requesting the Magistrate to take bond from the petitioners under section 116 (3) of the Code. A rejoinder, dated 27.11.74 was filed on behalf of the petitioners stating that nothing had happened after the institution of the Criminal case and the' counter case relating to the incident that took place on 19.7.74 and there was no ne









Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top