SUDARSHAN RAI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed, against the order, dated 9th November, 1979 passed in case No. 1903(M) of 1979,by the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Boxer initiating proceedings against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as "the Code"), and against the judgment dated 31st February, 1980 passed in Criminal Revision No. 426 of 1979 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur (Arrah), upholding the order of the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate.

(2.) It appears that on an application filed by opposite party No. 2 the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate on 19th November, 1979 initiated proceedings against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Code. From the order-sheet it appears that on having received the application the learned Magistrate drew up proceedings against the petitioners under Section 107 of the Code. Thereafter, on the same date he wrote in the order-sheet that as from the application of opposite party No. 2 it appeared that due to enmity there was apprehension of breach of peace by the petitioners the proceeding was being initiated. Notices were accordingly sent to the petitioners. In the notice as well the substance of the information received on the basis of which the learned Magistrate was satisfied that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code should be initiated, was not stated. It is obvious, therefore, that the proceeding has been initiated in utter disregard of the provisions of Section 111 of the Code, which the learned Magistrate, as is the settled law, could not do. I have, therefore, no option but to hold that the of the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code against the petitioners cannot be sustained and must be set aside.

(3.) On behalf of the State it was submitted that as the petitioners had gone in revision before the learned Sessions Judge, Bhojpur at Arrah a second revision petition was not maintainble. Learned Counsel is right in his submission in view of the provisions of Section 397(2) of the Code. However, in the instant case the application in this Court has been made under Section 482 of the Code. It is equally well settled that if this Court is satisfied that continuance of a proceeding would be an abuse of the processes of the Court or considers otherwise to secure the ends of justice then it can always interfere. In the instant case I have already held that intiation of the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code being in utter violation of Section 111 of the Code cannot be sustained.