SITARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three applications have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment. When does "inquiry" in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') commence ? That is the point falling for consideration in these three applications. The commencement of inquiry in a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code has assumed importance under the new Code, as Section 116 (6) has determined the life of a proceeding as six months from the commencement of the inquiry,

(2.) These three applications have been placed before the Special Bench in view of an apparent conflict of views in two Division Bench decisions of this Court, Considering the importance of the question involved H.L. Agrawal and P.S. Sahay, JJ. directed that the matter be considered and set at rest by a larger Bench. That is how these cases are before this Full Bench.

(3.) The facts in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2724 of 1975 are that a proceeding under Section 107 of the Code was initiated against the petitioner on 13-6-1974. They appeared in court in answer to notice on 24-7-1974 and prayed for time to show cause. Before the petitioners could show cause, on 14-9-1974 the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners to show cause against execution of ad interim bonds to keep the peace. The petitioners showed cause in the main proceeding on 29-10-1974. It appears that the proceeding dragged on for some months. On 11-2-1975 the learned Magistrate directed the first party (opposite party No. 2) to produce his witnesses in support of the allegations. On 12-5-1975 while the main proceeding was pending, the learned Magistrate directed the petitioners (second party) to execute ad interim bonds to keep the peace in terms of Section 116 (3) of the new Code. On 16-6-1975 the petitioners filed an application before the learned Magistrate to drop the proceeding, as six months had already expired without coming to a conclusion. That prayer of the petitioners was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Thereafter, they filed the present, application for quashing the entire proceeding.