Kirori Mal and ors. vs State of Haryana and ors.

G.S. Chahal, J.

Kirori Mal and others have come to this Court in revision against the order dated 10.10.1990, passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari vide which the order of discharge of the petitioners in proceedings u/ss 107/151, Cr.P.C. passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rewari was set aside and the case was remanded to the SDM for decision according to law.

Tara Chand, respondent2 gave information to the SDM on 29.6.89 regarding apprehension of breach of peace and wrongful acts of the petitioners. The SDM recorded the statement of respondent2 and went to the spot. After recording the inspection note he issued a show cause notice u/s. 111, Cr.P.C. and they were to execute a bond of Rs. 10,000/ to maintain peace for a period of one year.

On 28.7.89, the local Police filed a Kalendra u/ss 107/151, Cr.P.C. against Tikka Ram and others and also produced them before the Court. This Kalendra was also clubbed with the proceedings already initiated and notices were issued to the remaining three persons and Manohar Lal. However, their presence could not be procured in spite of issue of nonbialable warrants.

On 26.3.90, the SDM found that the case had been pending for more than six months and no evidence had also been produced and as such, he ordered the discharge of all the petitioners. Tara Chand respondent2 preferred a revision against this order of the SDM and the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, vide the impugned order, set aside the order of the SDM and remanded the case for proceeding further with a direction that necessary order for extension of the period of inquiry be passed.

After hearing the learned counsel, I hold the view that two sets of persons had to be dealt with separately. Kirori Mal, Teeka Ram alia Tek Chand, Rajinder Singh and Surender, petitioners had been produced by the Police and proceedings initiated against them. Qua them, inquiry had started when the notices were issued on the basis of the Police report. Section 116(2), Cr.P.C. provides as follows :

"Section 116. Inquiry as to truth of information.

(1)

(2) Such inquiry shall be made, as nearly as may be practicable, in the manner hereinafter prescribed for conducting trial and recording evidence in summons cases.

"

In view of this subsection, the inquiry had to terminate after six months if the Magistrate did not consider it proper to extend the period. This period of inquiry can be extended for exceptional reasons. The Magistrate was, however, not duty bound to extend the period of inquiry. Even if he did not pass any specific order on the basis of the application made by respondent2, the order of termination cannot be described to be illegal.

However, the case of Shiv Lal, Ramesh and Manohar Lal stands on a different footing. They had not yet appeared before the Court and not inquiry had yet been initiated. The SDM was still summoning them to appear in Court and reply to the show cause notice. Under sub section (1) of Section 116, Cr.P.C., inquiry will be deemed to have been initiated only after notice has been served on these persons. The order of discharge passed by the learned SDM qua these persons was bad in law and has been correctly set aside by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. To that extent, that order does not call for interference.

In view of the above discussion, I allow the revision filed by Kirori Mal, Teeka Ra, alias Tek Chand, Rajinder Singh and Surender after setting aside the order of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge dated 10.10.90 and restoring the order of the learned SDM, dated 26.3.90.

Revision allowed.