URMILA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with judgment dated 23.7.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kinnaur Sessions Division at Rampur Bushahr, whereby application under Section 116 (7) Cr.PC ., having been filed by the applicant/petitioner herein (Urmila Devi), laying therein challenge to order dated 17.5.2017, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Division Kalpa at Reckong Peo, in Case No. 35/IV/16, titled Raj Kumar v. Urmila Devi under Sections 107 and 150 of Cr.PC., came to be dismissed, petitioner approached this Whether reporters of the Local papers are allowed to see the judgment? Court in the instant proceedings filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) Briefly stated facts, as emerge from the record are that proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.PC., came to be initiated against the present petitioner in the court of learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kalpa at Reckong Peo , at the behest of complainant namely Raj Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner had been making threats to her and his brother Ram Pal to vacate the house, which had been constructed by him in the year, 1986 on the land of one Amar Chand Pathak and on account thereof, there is great threat to breach of peace and the public tranquility. Learned Magistrate after having received aforesaid complaint found sufficient ground to initiate proceedings under Sections 107 and 150 Cr.PC and accordingly, issued show cause notice under Section 111 Cr.PC to the present petitioner directing her to show cause on 20.5.2016, as to why she be not directed to execute the necessary bonds to keep peace.

(3.) However, fact remains that aforesaid inquiry could not be completed within the stipulated period of six months as prescribed under Section 116 (6) of the Cr.PC and as such, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, vide order dated 17.5.2017, while exercising power under Section 116 Cr.PC, enlarged the time and fixed the case on 4.7.2017. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the passing of order dated 17.5.2017, petitioner preferred an application under Section 116 (7) of Cr.PC ., praying therein for setting aside order dated 17.5.2017, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and terminate the inquiry initiated against her at the behest of the complainant Raj Kumar. Learned Sessions Judge Kinnaur Session Division at Rampur Bushahr, vide judgment dated 23.7.2018, dismissed the application filed under Section 116 (7) Cr.PC , and upheld the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and directed the present petitioner to appear before the Magistrate on 20.8.2018. In the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.