The main legal point established in this judgment is that Section 116(6) of the Code of Criminal Procedure determines the span of life of the proceedings under Section 107 and non-compliance with its provisions automatically terminates the proceedings.

( 1 ) J. G. Mehta was married to Major M. K. Singha, respondent No. 2, on 19th February, 1973 in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies Thereafter, they lived together as husband and wife only upto 26th September, 1973, at the place of posting of respondent No 2 in Mizoram. However, they could not pull on together smoothly and the petitioner s daughter was allegedly turned out of the matrimonial house by respondent No. 2 during advance stage of pregnancy. Subsequently, a son was born out of the wedlock on 18th December, 1973. Respondent No. 2 thereafter moved a petition for judicial separation sometime in August, 1975. Civil litigation between the parties also commenced with regard to the custody of the child and at present the child is in the custody of respondent No. 2 as per orders of the Court although the mother of the child has been permitted to see him off and on.

( 2 ) IN the meanwhile, father of respondent No. 2 died on 17th December) 1978. On coming to know of it, the petitioner alongwith Smt. Rashmi Singha went to the house of respondent No. 2 at 61/10, Rajinder Nagar, to offer condolence. However, it appears that an altercation took place between the parties and on a report lodged by respondent No. 2 with the police security proceedings under Section 107/150, Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the code) were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of a Kalendra filed by the police. The allegation made by respondent No. 2 therein was that the petitioner and his daughter Smt. Rashmi Singha had come to his house to snatch the child from him and they kicked up a row with him on that account. So, he apprehended breach of peace on the part of the petitioner. A separate report was also lodged by the petitioner apprehending breach of peace from respondent No. 2 but it appears that proceedings under Section 107/150 of the Code were initiated only against the petitioner.

( 3 ) IT appears that no process whatsoever was made and no evidence was produced during the course of enquiry held by Shri Naranjan Singh, Assistant Commissioner of Police. So, on the expiry of six months from commencement of the enquiry, he dropped the proceedings vide order dated 23rd November, 1979, in view of the provisions contained in Section 116 (6) of the Code. The petitioner was accordingly discharged. Felt aggrieved by the order of discharge, respondent No. 2 filed a revision petition in the Court of Session. It was heard by an Additional Sessions Judge, who vide his order dated 30th January, 1980, set aside the order of discharge and remanded the case to the Assistant Commissioner of Police with a direction to go ahead with the enquiry complete the same without undue delay after affording reasonable opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. He also granted extension of period for the purpose of enquiry as contemplated by Section 116 (6) of the Code observing that legal proceedings could not be allowed to be defeated by the inaction of the Magistrate (i. e. the Assistant Commissioner of Police in the instant case) himself where the life or security of an individual was being threatened.

( 4 ) AFTER the remand of the case Shri Ram Murti, Assistant Commissioner of Police, took over the enquiry apparently because he had succeeded Shri Naranjan Singh. He issued notices to the parties for appearance on 15th April, 1980, but on that day the petitioner was absent. On 15th May, 1980, respondent No. 2 examined five witnesses but their cross-examination was deferred on the request of the petitioner as his counsel was not available on that day. The cross-examination of all the witnesses concluded on 26th June, 1980 and the case was then adjourned to 26th July, 1980. On that day, the PWs were present but the case was adjourned to 24th September, 1980. The file docs not show whether any witness of respondent No. 2 was present on that day or not. Eventually on 22nd October, 1980, the Assistant Commissioner of Police droppe