(1.) This is a reference by the Sessions Judge of Sultanpur, recommending that an order passed by the S. D. M., Sadar, Sultanpur, dropping proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code, be set aside.
(2.) The proceedings started on 16-5-1962 with an application sent by Asghar Khan (the present petitioner) to the Superintendent of Police, alleging that there was danger of a breach of the peace being committed by Barkat and others (the opposite parties). On 8-6-1962 a police report recommending that action be taken against the opposite parties under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code was received in the Court of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who thereupon passed an order under Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause why they should not be ordered to execute personal bonds with sureties to keep the peace for one year. But when the opposite parties appeared in Court, they submitted a written application assuring the Magistrate that there was no danger of their committing any breach of the peace and that they would settle all their disputes by recourse to the Civil Courts. On this the Magistrate felt satisfied that there was no danger of a breach of the peace and accordingly dropped the proceedings under Section 107 Criminal Procedure Code.
(3.) The view expressed by the learned Sessions Judge is that once a Magistrate makes an order under Section 112 Criminal Procedure Code, he cannot drop the proceedings but must go on with the case in accordance with the procedure laid down in Section 117 Criminal Procedure Code, which enjoins him to : "proceed to inquire into the truth of the information upon which action has been taken, and to take such further evidence as may appear necessary." In the manner prescribed for summons cases. It seems to me, however, that this is an unnecessarily mechanical and rigid interpretation of the provisions of the relevant sections of the Criminal Procedure Code. A case under Section 107 starts only when the Magistrate is of opinion that there is 'sufficient ground for proceeding': in other words the initiation of such a case depends on the subjective satisfaction of the Magistrate concerned. The natural corollary to this is that if the Magistrate sees reason to change his mind and on reconsideration comes to the conclusion that there is after all no 'sufficient ground for proceeding', he should be at liberty to drop the case. It is true that there is no provision in any of the sections referred to specifically empowering a Magistrate to drop the proceedings once they have been started; but it seems to me that such a power may legitimatery be inferred.