SHIV DAYAL SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under Section 56ia of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that proceedings under Section 552 of that Code pending before the District magistrate Shajapur be quashed.

( 2 ) NON-PETITIONER No. 1 Puranlal made an application to the District Magistrate on 29th January, 19. 57 complaining thai his daughter Dhapubai (who was impleaded as non-peti-tioner No. 1 in that application) was unlawfully detained for unlawful purpose by non-petitioners 2 and 3 who are respectively her husband and fatherin-law. The unlawful detention alleged was that non-petitioner No. 1 had come to petitioner No. 3, who attempted to take undue liberties with her on several occasions. On 26-1-1957 when the petitioner had been out and Dhapubai was alone in his house, non-petitioners 2 and 3 aided by 5 or 6 men, came to the house armed with weapons and look her away forcibly and were detaining her. The unlawful purpose alleged was that non-petitioner No. 3 had indention to commit illicit intercourse with Dhapubai.

( 3 ) THIS petition was supported by an affidavit which was almost an identical copy of the petition. On the receipt of that petition the District Magistrate immediately issued a search warrant and fixed 4-2-1957 for further proceedings.

( 4 ) ON 31-1-1957 the police produced Dhapu-bai before the District Magistrate, who examined her. There she stated that she was brought be-fore the Magistrate by the police from the house of her husband; that she wanted to live with her father; that she was married to non-petitioner No. 2 about 16 years back; that she did not wish to stay with him because she was in trouble; that he beat her and insulted her; that her father-in-law had taken undue liberties with her; and that she was at that time quick with a child. After recording her statement the learned district Magistrate passed the following order on that clay: "to-day the police produced Dhapubai, whose statements has been recorded. In this matter 4-2-1957 is fixed. She must be produced on that date. The petitioner must furnish a security of Rs. 500/ -. Dhapubai be entrusted to the petitioner. "

( 5 ) ON 4-2-1957 the petitioner was asked to produce evidence on 13-2-1957 which was fixed for hearing. On that date neither the petitioner nor the non-petitioner no. 1 appeared; so the District Magistrate ordered the issuance of a notice to the petitioner to show cause why the security should not be forfeited and 5-4-1957 was fixed. ( 6 ) IN this way, several dates were fixed. The adjournments were either because dhapubai was not present before the Magistrate, or the Magistrate was on official tour, or because the applications for adjournments were made. Sometimes the district Magistrate was busy in some meeting e. g. , of the Planning Committee. Eventually on 23-12-1957 the learned District Magistrate heard arguments, but they remained unconcluded since the counsel wanted time to cite authorities. The matter was, therefore, adjourned to the following day. But on that day the counsel for the petitioner was elsewhere, hence the matter was postponed for one month and 22-1-1958 was fixed. On that date find on the dates fixed subsequently, viz. , 24-2-1958, 28th March, 17th May, 27th May, 18th June, 4th July, 5th July and 5th august, time was taken by the counsel for preparing themselves for arguments. On 19-9-1958 the learned Magistrate fixed 17-10-1958 for the production of dhapubai before him. Thereafter November 18, 1958 and then January 18, 1959 were fixed for the same purpose. On the last mentioned date the Magistrate was informed that Dhapubai was ill. The learned Magistrate ordered that a security for rs. 500/- should be furnished and he fixed 23-1-1959. On that date, the surety for dhapubai submitted to the Magistrate that he had an apprehension of a quarrel and, therefore, Dhapubai could not be produced on that date. So 24-1-1959 was fixed.

( 7 ) IN the meantime on 22-1-1959 Dhapubai appeared before the Magis

Click Here to Read the rest of this document