P.N.Bakshi, J. - (1.) IN proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. an order was passed under Section 111 Cr. P. C. on 15-11-1976. What preceded this order I am not taking into consideration in this application. Proceedings continued. On 24-6-77 an application was filed by the accused under Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. to the effect that six months time had passed, the proceedings had not been completed and therefore, they stood terminated. This application was rejected by the Magistrate on 24-6-77. Aggrieved thereby an application was filed by the applicants before the Sessions Judge under Section 116 (7) Cr. P. C. The Sessions Judge rejected that application. The case proceeded and a final order was passed by the Magistrate on 13-4-78. Aggrieved thereby an appeal was filed before the sessions Judge, Bulandshahr which has been dismissed on 15-6-78. Hence this revision.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned orders. The applicant's counsel has urged that in view of Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. the Court of Magistrate before whom enquiry was pending became functus-officio since the enquiry was not completed within the period of six months. He could not extend the period of limitation after the expiry of six months. Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. runs as follows:- "The enquiry under this suction shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of its commencement, and if such enquiry is not so completed, the proceedings under this chapter shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated unless for special reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs." This section clearly lays down that the proceedings must be completed within six months of their commencement; if they are not so completed they stand terminated. No order is required by the Magistrate for terminating these proceedings. By statute the termination is automatic. Therefore, after six months had expired the proceedings come to an end. If the Magistrate desired to extend the period for completing the enquiry for special reasons it was incumbent upon him to have exercised that jurisdiction within a period of six months starting from the commencement of the proceedings. ; That jurisdiction could not be exercised after the six months period had expired. Therefore, these proceedings under Section 107/116 Cr. P. C. stood automatically terminated. In revision, the Sessions Judge wrongly repelled the prayer made on behalf of the applicants by which he challenged the order of the Magistrate dated 24-6-77 extending the period of limitation. The court arbitrarily proceeded with the case. In appeal against the final order before the Sessions Judge the applicants again canvassed the said point but the same was repelled again. The applicants have repeated their submission in this court that under Section 116 (6) Cr. P. C. the proceedings stood terminated. In my opinion, there is substance in the applicant's contention and as such the impugned order passed by the courts below deserves to be quashed. I am, however informed by the counsel for the opposite side that the respondent no. 2 Smt. Singari is blind widow who is being harassed and threatened by the applicants, and that there is a great danger to a breach of peace and public tranquility. It is not for me to express any opinion on this question, but I must observe, if that situation prevailed even today it is open to the opposite party no. 2 to apply afresh before the proper authority for initiation of a fresh proceeding under Section 116 Cr. P. C.
(3.) THIS revision application is accordingly allowed and the impugned order passed by the courts below are set aside. Revision allowed.;