Back
1977 Supreme(Ori) 45
ORISSA HIGH COURT
R. N. MISRA AND N. K. DAS, JJ.
UCHHABA JENA AND OTHERS
VERSUS
KUNJABEHARI RAUTRAY AND ANOTHER
Original Jur. Case No.968 of 1976; Criminal Misc. Case No.495 of 1976,
Decided on : 5 -7 -1977.
The inquiry under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is deemed to have commenced when the Magistrate, after both parties appear before him, proceeds to inquire with reference to the evidence as to whether the delinquencies alleged are established.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 107, 116 - INQUIRY - COMPLETION WITHIN SIX MONTHS - INTERIM BONDS - JURISDICTION OF MAGISTRATE - INHERENT POWERS OF HIGH COURT - SECTION 482 - SCOPE.
Fact of the Case:
A proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was initiated against the petitioners on 12-2-1975. On 30th of August, 1975, the petitioners contended that the proceeding could not be completed within six months from the initiation of the inquiry as required under Section 116 (6) of the Code, and should stand terminated. The learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding on the sole ground that the inquiry under Section 107 had been instituted on 12-2-1975 and though more than six months had elapsed since then, the inquiry could not be completed. On the self-same day, the opposite party filed another application for initiation of a fresh proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he referred to the earlier proceeding and the manner in which it had got concluded. The learned Magistrate directed notice to members of the second party in accordance with law. On 25-3-1976, the learned Magistrate passed an order requiring interim bonds to be furnished by members of the second party to the tune of Rs. 500/- each for keeping the peace.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the inquiry referred to in sub-s.(6) is with reference to the stage when the Magistrate, after both parties appear before him, proceeds to inquire with reference to the evidence as to whether the delinquencies alleged are established. Once we take that view, by 25th of March, 1976, six months were not over and, therefore, the learned Magistrate was not obliged to terminate the proceeding.
Issues: 1. Whether the inquiry under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. was completed within six months from the date of its commencement as required under Section 116 (6) of the Code? 2. Whether the Magistrate had jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to execute interim bonds under Section 116 (3) of the Code? 3. Whether the High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The inquiry under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. is deemed to have commenced when the Magistrate, after both parties appear before him, proceeds to inquire with reference to the evidence as to whether the delinquencies alleged are established. 2. The Magistrate has jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to execute interim bonds under Section 116 (3) of the Code, if he considers that immediate measures are necessary for the prevention of a breach of the peace or disturbance of the public tranquillity or the commission of any offence or for the public safety. 3. The High Court can exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the proceeding only in appropriate cases in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ application and the criminal miscellaneous proceeding were dismissed. The court directed that the records be returned and the learned Magistrate be called upon to close the proceeding within three months from the date of receipt of the records.
JUDGEMENT
R. N. Misra,J. :- On 17-9-1974, an application was made by Kunjabehari Rautray (opposite party No.1) for initiation of a proceeding under S.107 of the Cr.P.C. and the learned Magistrate sent the application to the Officer-in-charge of the Nimapara Police Station for a report. On 24-9-1974, the Police recommended initiation of a proceeding and suggested that interim bonds may be taken under S.116 (3) of the Code. On 12-2-1975, a proceeding under S.107 of the Code was initiated and members of the second party were noticed to appear. On 30th of August, 1975, members of the second party contended before the learned Magistrate that as the proceeding could not be completed within six months from initiation of the inquiry as required under S.116 (6) of the Code, the same should stand terminated. The learned Magistrate dropped the proceeding on the sole ground that the inquiry under S.107 had been instituted on 12-2-1975 and though more than six months had elapsed since then, the inquiry could not be completed. On the self-same day, opposite party No.1 filed another application for initiation of a fresh proceeding under S.107 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he referred to the earlier proceeding and the manner in which it had got concluded. On the basis of the materials placed, the learned Magistrate was pleased to direct notice to members of the second party in accordance with law. The matter was adjourned from time to time - sometimes at the instance of the members of the second party and on some other occasions at the instance of the court. On 26-12-1975, the learned Magistrate required the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station to be examined in support of the request for taking of interim bonds. On 22nd of January, 1976, the Officer-in-charge could not appear, but the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police was examined and the learned Magistrate required the Officer-in-charge to appear on 2-2-1976. Ultimately on 27-2-1976, the Officer-in-charge was examined and on 12th of March, 1976, the matter relating to furnishing of interim bonds was heard. On 25-3-1976, the learned Magistrate passed an order requiring interim bonds to be furnished by members of the second party to the tune of Rs. 500/- each for keeping the peace. Against the said order, the members of the second party carried a revision before the learned Sessions Judge of Puri. By the impugned order he declined to interfere. The writ application has been filed for quashing of the direction for furnishing interim bonds on the basis that a second revision at the instance of the petitioners would not be maintainable in law in view of the bar under the new Code of Criminal Procedure.
2. The connected miscellaneous application is one for invoking the inherent powers of this Court in terms of S.482 of the Criminal P.C. for quashing of another part of the self-same order by which the learned Magistrate declined to drop the proceeding notwithstanding that the period of six months from the commencement of enquiry had elapsed. It is alleged that no justifying reasons have been given to continue the proceeding and though the learned Sessions Judge had been moved in the matter, he has not applied his mind appropriately. It is alleged that continuing the proceeding would prejudice the petitioners and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Petitioners, therefore, have asked for quashing of the proceeding in exercise of inherent powers vested in the court. That is how the writ application and the criminal miscellaneous proceeding have arisen.
3. We would first deal with the criminal miscellaneous proceeding. On the authority of a Bench decision of this court in the case of Deena Nath Acharya v. Daitari Charan Patra (1975) 41 Cut LT 656 : (1975 Cri LJ 1931), Mr. Mohapatra for the opposite party No.1 contends that the attempt to invoke inherent powers for quashing the proceeding is not tenable in law. The learned Chief Justice delivering the judgment of the Court, observed (at pp 1932, 1
