Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 .

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties as well gone through the records of the case.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused material available on record, it is not in dispute that show cause notice on the complaint made by the respondent Raj Kumar was issued on 30.4.2016, and as such, inquiry in terms of Section 111 Cr.PC., was to be completed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate within a period of six months as provided under Section 116 of Cr.PC. At this stage, it would be profitable to take note of following provisions of law:

(7) Where any direction is made under sub-

section (6) permitting the continuance of proceedings, the Sessions Judge may, on an .

application made to him by the aggrieved party, vacate such direction if he is satisfied that it was not based on any special reason or was perverse."

6. Careful of Section 111 Cr.PC. clearly suggests that when magistrate acting under Sections 107, 108, 109 and 110, deems it necessary to require any person to show-cause, he /she would make order in writing specifically stating therein the substance of information received directing his/her to show cause as to why he/she be not directed to execute the necessary bond to keep peace. Provisions contained under Sections 112, 113 and 114 Cr.PC., provides for procedure to be followed for causing presence of person. Section 116 Cr.PC provides that magistrate shall proceed to inquire into the truth of information, upon which action is taken and take such further evidence as may appear necessary. Section 116 (6) categorically provides that inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement and if such enquiry is not so completed on the expiry of the said period, proceedings under this Chapter shall stand terminated, however, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, magistrate may otherwise direct. Section 116(7) further provides that when any direction is made under .

magistrate proceeded to enlarge the time on the request of respondent, who prayed for enlargement of time to file reply which could not be a ground to enlarge the time, rather court below in the absence of reply, if any, ought to have proceeded to punish the accused, if otherwise found guilty, on the basis of material available with it.

9. to Though, impugned order suggests that report of field agency was awaited, but there is no mention in the order that prior to passing of impugned order, report of revenue agency was called for, and the same was awaited, rather it appears that for the first time, on 17.5.2017, Sub-Divisional Magistrate called for the report of revenue agency, by which time, statutory period of six months as provided for completion of inquiry under Section 116 (6) Cr.PC., has already expired. Similarly, judgment dated 23.7.2018, passed by the learned Sessions Judge in application filed under Section 116 (7) Cr.PC., by the present petitioner is also not sustainable because same is also not based upon the proper appreciation of law as well as facts of the case. Learned Sessions Judge, in its order observed that on 17.5.2017, petitioner sought time to file reply, as such, magistrate enlarged the time. But as has .