MATHANGI SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in M.C. No. 4/93 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue), Eluru, have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') to quash the proceedings initiated against them under Section 107 of the Code on the complaint dated 21-3-1993 made by the Inspector of Police, Ganapavaram Circle, Ganapavaram.

(2.) The facts which led to the filing of this petition are as follows : The Inspector of Police Ganapavaram, laid information before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Revenue), Eluru, (for short 'the Magistrate') on 21-3-1993 and sought initiation of action against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Code on the ground that there is imminent threat to peace and security to the public in Apparopeata due to clashes between two rival groups one of which was headed by the first respondent. Thereupon, the Magistrate registered the case as M. C. No. 4/93 and caused notice dated 22-3-1992 on the petitioners, directing them to appear before him for enquiry at the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Eluru on 3-4-1993 at 3.00 p.m. Accordingly, the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate on 3-4-1993. Thereafter, the case was posted on several days either at Eluru or other places, every time directing the petitioners to appear for enquiry. But, the said enquiry was not completed even though a period of six months has elapsed from the date of first posting, i.e., 3-4-1993. Therefore, the petitioner made an application before the Magistrate to terminate the proceedings in terms of the provisions of sub-section (6) of Section 116 of the Code. But, the Magistrate instead of disposing of that application, made an order dated 24-11-1993 under Section 111 of the Code, requiring the petitioners to show cause why they should not be directed to execute a bond of Rs. 1,000.00 with two sureties each for the same amount and to keep peace in the village for a period of six months. Hence this petition.

(3.) The principal contention of Sri Vivekanand, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the proceedings stood automatically terminated on expiry of six months from the date of first posting for enquiry i.e., 3-4-1993. According to him, the enquiry under Section 116 (1) of the Code shall be deemed to have commenced with effect from 3-4-1993, the day the petitioners were directed to appear for enquiry before the Magistrate. He tries to sustain this submission on the basis of the provisions of Section (6) of Section 116 of the Code, which provide that :