CHANDGI RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHANDGI Ram and others have filed this revision against the order of Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Rewari dated 29.9.1983 which is in the following terms : -

(2.) THE main ground taken up by Mr. Gopi Chand, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the learned District Judge, Narnaul has not complied with the provisions of section 111 of Cr.P.C. and his failure on his part vitiates proceedings. Section 111 of Cr. C.P. reads as under : -

(3.) MR . Gopi Chand, to support his contention, has placed reliance on a Single Bench/authority of this Court in Shri Rajinder Singh Konner v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1973 C.L.R. 108 wherein it has been held that non -compliance of section 112 of the old Code (which now corresponds to section 111 of the new Code,) vitiates the proceedings. The learned counsel has further contended that since no overt act has been alleged in the report submitted by police, no proceedings under section 107/151 Cr.P.C. could be initiated on the same. He has in this context place reliance of a D.B. authority of this Court reported as Col Partap Singh Gill v. The State of Haryana and others, 1974 P.L.J. 11. A bare reading of the Calender submitted by the police shows that no over act has been attributed to the petitioners. The reading of the order of the Sub Divisional Magistrate shows that he has failed to comply with the provision of section 111 Cr.P.C. Consequently, this petition is disallowed and proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate are quashed. Petition allowed.