The court clarified the requirements and limitations of Section 116(3) and Section 107 Cr.P.C., emphasizing the power of the Executive Magistrate to pass orders and the commencement of enquiry.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Revision Case is filed under Section 397 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, to call for the records pertaining to the order in M.C.No.03/2015/C dated 16.11.2015 passed by the 1st respondent and set aside the same.)

This revision petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 116(3) Cr.P.C., directing the petitioners herein to execute a bond to keep public peace and tranquility and in case of breach, to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/.

2. The petitioners herein challenges the above proceedings on the ground that there is a civil dispute pending between 'A' party and 'B' party. While so, pursuant to FIR, registered in Crime No.227 of 2015 dated 10.05.2015 under Section 107 Cr.P.C., notice was issued to both the parties on 14.05.2015, to participate in the enquiry initiated under Section 111 of Cr.P.C. The petitioners gave their written representation on 31.08.2015. Thereafter, on 16.11.2015 Executive Magistrate had passed the impugned order which is beyond six months period from the date of initiating the proceedings and therefore, it is contravention to Section 116(6) of Cr.P.C.

3. Further, it is contended that to invoke powers under Chapter VIII of the Code, a single incident is not sufficient. The conclusion of the Executive Magistrate that he made direct and indirect enquiry and satisfied that there is a likelihood of disturbance to the public peace is not supported by any legal evidence. Without any objective assessment about the fact, the impugned order has been passed. Hence, it is liable to be quashed.

4. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that alleging members of the 'B' party making attempt to form a road in the land owned by the petitioners herein who represent the 'A' party, there was serious law and order problem caused by these two groups. The Inspector, attached to Tiruchengode Rural Police Station, taking note of the disturbance to the public peace, registered FIR under Section 107 of Cr.P.C., in Crime No.227 of 2015 and requested the Executive Magistrate to proceed against these two groups, which are causing disturbance to the public peace. Accordingly, on 14.05.2015, under M.C.3 of 2015, proceeding was initiated by the RDO, Executive Magistrate.

4(i). RDO issued the notice under Section 111 of Cr.P.C., directing the members of the 'A' party led by the petitioners herein to appear before him on 20.05.2015 at 3.00 pm. In the show cause notice, it is stated that why they should not be directed to execute bond for Rs.10,000/- as a security to maintain peace. The petitioners have not participated in the enquiry inspite of several opportunity. On 16.11.2015, having satisfied that deliberately the parties are not participating in the enquiry and not ready to execute a bond and through the enquiry conducted directly and discretely, he is satisfied that there is possibility of breach of peace, by invoking power under Section 116(3) of Cr.P.C., the petitioners were directed to execute a bond. There is no illegality or non application of mind in the said order. The delay in passing the order is purely due to attitude of the petitioners who did not participate in the enquiry.

5. Learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) submitted that the proceedings under 107 Cr.P.C., commenced on 13.05.2015, the impugned order was passed on 16.11.2015 since the actual commencement of proceedings commenced only on 20.05.2015, the date on which the parties were called upon to respond the notice. The impugned order was passed on 16.11.2015 which is well within a period of six months. The date of notice, which is 14.05.2015, cannot be considered as commencement of proceedings.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would rely upon the judgments of this Court rendered in:

1) Somasundaram and 10 others Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Dharapuram and another reported in 2002 (1) CTC 72, it is observed as follows:-

“6. An order passed under Se