PARESH CHANDRA HATI Vs. AHITOSH PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revisional application has been filed by the petitioners, five in number, who are the opposite parties in a proceeding under section 107 of the code of Criminal Procedure before the learned Magistrate drawn up at the instance of the first party Ahitosh Panda who is impleaded in this application as one of the opposite parties. The prayer of the petitioners before this Court is for quashing the proceedings pending before the learned magistrate.

(2.) THE petition is being opposed toy both the first party and the State. Mr. S. N. Ganguly appears for the petitioner. Mr. Satyajit Mondal represents the first party and Mr. Sudipta Moitra appears on behalf of the State. The contention of Mr. Ganguly before us is that in view of sub-section (6) of section 116 of the Code of Criminal procedure, 1973 the proceeding before the trial court ought to have been terminated with the expiry of six months from the commencement of the inquiry. It is contended from the side of the petitioners that as soon as the opposite party appears in a proceeding under section 107 of the Code of Criminal procedure, the inquiry starts and if the inquiry is not concluded within a period of six months from that appearance, the proceeding automatically terminates. The learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the opposite parties have, however, submitted that the inquiry commences with the taking of evidence in such proceeding and not from the appearance of the opposite parties. The moot question that arises for decision in the case before us relates to the time of the commencement of the inquiry referred to in section 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

(3.) BEFORE proceeding to examine that question, let us take note of certain facts as will appear from the order-sheet of the learned Magistrate in this case. On 25. 7. 74. the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Diamond harbor, saw the police report and to him it appeared that there was a likelihood of a breach of peace or disturbances of the public tranquility by the opposite parties. He, therefore, on that very day directed them to show cause, under section 107 of the Code of criminal Procedure, by 24. 8. 74. why they should not be ordered to furnish a bond of rs. 1000/- to keep peace for a period of one year in view of the police report about the apprehension of breach of peace or disturbances of public tranquility on account of wrongful acts of the opposite party. On 24. 8. 74. the opposite party appeared and showed cause in compliance with the order of the learned Magistrate. The opposite parties were allowed bail of Rs. 500/- each and 12. 11. 74 was fixed as the next date. On that date the opposite parties were present in court and the case was transferred to the file of another Executive Magistrate for disposal. The Executive Magistrate, to whose file the case was transferred, fixed 9. 1. 75 for evidence. On 9. 1. 75 the opposite parties were present. No witness on behalf of the first party was present and on the prayer of an Advocate of the State panel, the hearing was adjourned till 18. 4. 75. On the date fixed, although the opposite parties were present, no witness on behalf of the first party was present and again on the prayer of the panel Advocates who appeared for the first party, the hearing was shifted to 9. 6. 75. Again the date was shifted. Without stating any details as to what happened on different dates thereafter, it may be stated that the first party wanted to say that there was still apprehension of breach of peach and that he was being threatened with dire consequences by the opposite parties. The learned magistrate, it appears, called for a report from the Officer-in-Charge of the local Police Station and in the meantime the opposite parties were directed to show cause why their bail should not be cancelled and why they should not be bound down by other bonds. On several dates thereafter a question arose whether there was still apprehension of breach of peace and whether the opposite parties were threatening the first party with dire consequences. It is, however, to be noted that the learned magistrate did not take any active step for examining the witnesses and to dispose of the proceeding at an early date. The opposite parties, however, moved the present application on 9. 4. 76. The present Rule was issued and ad interim order of stay of further proceedings by the learned Magistrate was granted.