SAROJ DEVI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have preferred the petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order impugned passed by the Executive Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi in a proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, vide case No. M -773 of 2003 on 3rd March, 2004 as also on 5th March, 2004. Annexure 1 relates to the order passed by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Ranchi in case No. 773 of 2003 on 20.6.2003 for initiation of the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the police report calling upon the members of the opposite party in view of the apprehension of breach of peace to show cause as to why not he be asked to execute bond of Rs. 1000/ - to maintain peace, but surprisingly without disclosing the names of the parties. The next date was fixed on 16.7.2003. From perusal of the entire order sheet the names of either first party or second party do not appear except the final order which is the order impugned dated 5.3.2004.

(2.) THE main contention of the petitioner/2nd party of the said proceedings is that the proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was extended beyond six months after expiry of the statutory period of six months and that too without recording special reasons for such extension. It is further submitted that the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure automatically terminates after completion of six months and that no order was necessary for its termination. It has been pointed out that learned Executive Magistrate though had fixed the date for evidence of the witnesses on 10.3.2004 but without giving an opportunity of hearing of the petitioner of the present case and recalling the date passed the final order on 5.3.2004 calling upon the petitioner to execute bond, vide order impugned dated 5.3.2004.

(3.) THE order passed in the proceedings dated 3.3.2004 indicates that the petition was filed on behalf of the first party/opposite party of the proceedings for extension of two months time and was allowed by mechanical order without reasons to be recorded for further period and on the same date two witnesses were produced and examined on behalf of the first party. It is indicated from the said order which was drawn after some times that learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner appeared and produced a judgment of the High Court containing proposition of law with regard to extension of the proceedings under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure beyond statutory period and, therefore, the record was posted for 5.3.2004 for argument, though it was earlier posted on 10.3.2004 for examination of the witnesses.