@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
T. Ranga Rao, J.@mdashThis petition is filed u/s 482 Cr.P.Code to quash the proceedings in M.C.No. B/635/91 on the file of the Special
Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad.
2. The facts in giving rise to the filing of this petition are, briefly, as follows:- The Inspector of Police submitted a report before the Special
Executive Magistrate on 11-10-1991 alleging that there were disputes in between ''A'' Group and ''B'' Group in respect, of the house bearingNo.l-
l-379/228(SRT-379) situated in Jawahar Nagar and narrated the incidents occurred in between them and also about the pendency of civil suit
between the parties in O.S. No- 2678/90 on the file of the IV Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and both the groups indulged in unlawful
acts against each other and requested to initiate the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.Code.
3. The learned Special Magistrate passed orders u/s 111 Cr.P.Code calling upon both the parties to show cause why they should not be bound
over u/s 107 Cr.P.C for a period of two years by executing a bond for Rs. 2,000/- each and cash security for a like sum.
4. It appears that V. Jagannadha Rao, the first party in ''A'' group filed Criminal Petition No. 674/92 u/s 482 Cr.P.Code to quash the said
proceedings and the High Court passed orders on 31-3-95 as follows:
..The petition is dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioner herein may move the Special Executive Magistrate, Hyderabad for dropping the
proceedings which were initiated in the year 1991...
But the first party filed Crl. M.P.No. 366 of 1995 u/s 116(6) Cr.P.C. for extending the time for enquiry and the said Special Executive Magistrate
passed orders on 30-6-95 stating that the dropping of the case without concluding the enquiry would not solve the problem and extended the
enquiry for a period of six months. The second party filed this petition to quash the proceedings.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Inspector of Police submitted the report on 11-10-91 and the orders u/s 111 were
issued and the matter was posted to 28-10-91 and again adjourned to 6-11-91 and both the parties were present on 16-11-1991 and it was
posted for counters and the learned Magistrate erred in taking into consideration the date of filing the Counters by both the parties and the
proceedings deemed to have been commenced from 16-11-91 and the proceedings cannot continue beyond the period of six months and he relied
on a decision Sitaram Singh and Others, etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Another, etc., , (opposite Parties), wherein the Full Bench of Patna High
Court held as under:-
...The commencement of inquiry in a proceeding u/s 107 has necessarily to be interpreted in terms of commencement of a summons trial provided
for in Chapter XX of the Code. Section 251 in Chapter XX makes it absolutely clear that a summons trial commences when the accused appears
or is brought before the trial Court and the particulars of the offence are stated or read out to him. The point of commencement of a proceeding u/s
107 of the Code must, therefore, be determined in the same terms. Section 112 provides for the reading over or explaining the substance of the
accusation and the satisfaction of the Magistrate. Section 112 thus is akin in content to that of Section 251. As a summons trial commences with
the reading out the particulars of the offence to the accused, a proceeding u/s 107 also must necessarily be deemed to have commenced with the
reading over the substance of the information received. The test of application of judicial mind for the purpose of proceeding with an inquiry u/s
117 is much too ethereal and is likely to cause confusion in the minds of Subordinate Courts. When after a party has appeared in Court, the
Magistrate adjourns the proceedings, he does so for the purpose of proceeding with the enquiry. Thus the forming of conclusion to proceed to
enquire into the allegations takes place on the very day the party noticed appears in Court.......
He also relied on a decision Dwarkanath Ramchander Angachekar and Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra and another 1977 Cri. L.J. 120. He
further submitted that after the expiry of six months period, the proceedings stand terminated and the. said proceedings cannot be revived and he
relied on a decision J.C. Mehta Vs. The State and Another, .
6. The learned Magistrate in his order observed as under:-
........The present case is instituted as long back as on 12-10-1991. Both parties filed counters, on 16-12-1991, and 22-2-1992. Taking into
consideration counter filed by the II Party respondent on 22-2-1992 the time lapsed for enquiry is calculated as under:-
High Court granted stay in MP No. 975/92 on 17-4-1992
Date of filing counter by II party Respondent on 22-2-1992
Time lapsed is 3 months 25 days.
Disposal of petition No. 674/92 by Hon''ble
High Court on 29-4-1994
Filing the petition u/s 116(6) Cr.P.C. 24-6-1995
1 month 26 days.
Adding the same, the time lapsed comes to 5 months 21 days..
Thus it is clear that the learned Magistrate took starting point of limitation from the date of filing of counter by the second party i.e. on 22-2-1992.
But it is borne out from the docket proceedings that both the parties appeared on 16-11-1991 and the matter was adjourned for counters, thus the
starting point of limitation is 16-11-1991 and if 16-11-1991 is taken into consideration and it is mentioned that the High Court order is received on
17-4-1992, then the period works out as 5 months. It is further mentioned in the order that the disposal by the High Court is on 29-4-1994 and
the petition u/s 116(6) Cr.P.C. was filed on 24-6-95 and the period is one month 26 days and thus the total period is 6 months 26 days and
beyond six months. Thus the proceedings shall stand terminated and the conclusion that the starting point of limitation is on the day on which the
second party filed counter is incorrect in view of the decision referred supra.
7. The earlier petition filed by A- l party to quash the proceedings was withdrawn and the petitioner was permitted to move the Special Magistrate
to drop the proceedings which was initiated in the year 1991, but contrary to the said indication ''A'' party filed petition to continue the
proceedings. The proceedings were initiated in the year 1991 and the show cause notice u/s 111 Cr.P.C. was issued to the parties directing them
to execute a bond for Rs. 2000 /- for a period of two years and cash security for a like sum and the said order was passed in October, 1991
about nearly 4 years 10 months back. It is also relevant to mention that the Civil Suit is pending between the parties with regard to the said
property and injunction was granted by the High Court. An earlier proceeding In MC. No. B/907/90 was also initiated against both the parties and
the ''B'' party filed petition to quash the proceedings and the High Court passed orders on 25-9-91 stating that the Civil Suits are pending prior to
the institution of the proceedings, it is wrong on the part of the Officer to initiate the proceedings and directed the parties to place the material
before the Officer and directed the matter to be disposed of within one month, and the said proceedings were closed on 2-11-1991.
8. The learned Magistrate passed orders on the petition filed by V. Jagannadh Rao seeking extension of enquiry stating that dropping the case
without concluding the enquiry would not solve the problem. It is also significant to mention that the proceedings u/s 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated at
the instance of the Inspector of Police and it is clear that if there is still threat of breach of peace, the police would have moved the Court for
extension of time u/s 116 Cr.P.C. But it is very much doubtful whether one party can file petition seeking extension of enquiry. There is no material
placed before the Magistrate by the police seeking extension of time and the Magistrate is expected to record special reasons for extending the
enquiry beyond six months, and the learned Magistrate failed to state any special reasons except stating that dropping of the case would not solve
the problem. I do not think there is justification for the Magistrate to continue the proceedings initiated about more than four years ten months
back. If there is any threat of breach of peace, the police are at liberty to take appropriate action as open to them under law. Therefore, in the light
of foregoing discussion, I am inclined to hold that in any view of the matter, the proceedings cannot be continued and are liable to be quashed.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed and the proceedings are quashed.
