DIBAKAR NAIK Vs. PUSPALATA PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Sec. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, the Code) the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 4-4-1994 and for quashing of the entire proceeding in Misc. Criminal Case No. 3/94 pending before the District Magistrate, Sundargarh.

(2.) The facts, which are essential to be stated for disposal of the present application are as follows: The District Magistrate, Sundargarh initiated Misc. Criminal Case No. 3/94 against the petitioner on the basis of credible information furnished to him. As breach of peace was apprehended the petitioner was asked to show cause under Sec. 107/111 of the Code to show cause why he should not be required to execute a bond for Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties from respectable local persons for Rs. 10,000/ - each to keep peace for a period of six months. While initiating the said proceedings in the same order dated 4-4-1994 the District Magistrate directed arrest of the petitioner under Sec. 113 of the Code and accordingly issued warrant of arrest. The petitioner was produced before him on 6-4-1994. An order was passed on that day remanding him to jail custody till 16-4-1994. On 21-4-1994 the District Magistrate passed an order indicating that he was not satisfied with regard to the solvency of the sureties produced by the petitioner and directed him to continue in jail custody till 23-4-1994. On 23-4-1994 it was contended before the District Magistrate that as no inquiry had commenced execution of the interim bond should not be directed and further the warrant should not have been issued at the first instance and the petitioner should not have been directed to languish in jail custody. The learned District Magistrate dealt with the contentions and came to hold that the order issuing warrant was justified in view of the provisions enjoined under Sec. 113 of the Code. With regard to execution of the interim bond he also observed that such a direction is called for and accordingly he directed under Sec. 116(3) of the Code directing the petitioner to execute a bond of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 10,000/- each by local respectable persons. As the petitioner expressed his inability to execute the bond he was remanded to jail custody till inquiry was concluded. The matter stood adjourned to 7-5-1994. On 7-5-1994, a prayer was made to release the petitioner on bail, but the same was refused since the petitioner had refused to execute the interim bond. An application for bail was filed before the learned Sessions Judge in Criminal Misc. Case No. 123/94, but the same was rejected as not pressed. Eventually on 4-6-1994 the interim bond was executed and the petitioner was released from the jail custody.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the power exercised by the learned District Magistrate under Section 113 of the Code amounts to abuse of power in the factual backdrop of the present case and secondly, the direction to execute interim bond before commencement of inquiry is erroneous in view of the provisions enjoined under Section 116(3) of the Code. It is canvassed that as the petitioner has suffered enough there is no jurisdiction for continuance of the proceeding. Mr. D.P. Das for the opposite party No.1 and Mr. S.C. Satpathy, the learned AddI. Standing Counsel appearing for the State submitted in support of the impugned order. Their contention is that as the petitioner had already executed the interim bond there should be direction for final disposal of the main case.