Sunaina Devi vs The State of Bihar and Others

Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The only grievance what petitioner has, in spite of having persistence of apprehension of breach of peace warranting asking for bond in terms of Section 116(3) of the Cr.P.C. for which a petition is already pending since before, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gaya has dropped the proceeding in terms of Section 116(6) of the Cr.P.C. on the ground of expiry of a tenure of six months, the prescribed time for conduction of trial.

This Court under revisional jurisdiction cannot direct the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gaya to extend the life of the proceeding because it happens to be solely exercised by the competent court on being satisfied with the materials having before him. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion moreso, the order impugned happens to be dated 20.3.2010 that means to say more than three years have passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that the dispute is amongst the Pattidars and the same is still continuing. One of the petitioners, being a widow, always found herself vulnerable at the end of the Opposite Party. If the matter is reported to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gaya which could justify fresh action, the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Gaya will be competent enough to proceed afresh and with the aforesaid observation instant petition is also found tenable and in terms thereof, is disposed of.