Jharkhand High Court
Raj Deo Ray vs The State Of Jharkhand on 28 January, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P No.3018 of 2018
Raj Deo Ray, Son of Sri Prasad Ray, aged about 57 years, resident of
Village and Post Office-Tand Balidih, P.S. Jaridih, District-Bokaro.
... Petitioner
Versus
1.
The State of Jharkhand
2. Poddar Singh Son of Late Ranjit Singh
3. Shakti Singh Son of Late Mochiram Singh
4. Pandey Gosai @ Nunu Gosai Son of Babulal Gosai
5. Hemlal Gosai Son of Prahlad Gosai
6. Binod Gosai Son of Hemlal Gosai.
All residents of Village- Tand Balidih, P.O.-Tand Balidih and P.S.-
Jaridih, District-Bokaro. ... Opposite Parties
Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Rashidi, Adv.
: Md. Azam, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Fahad Allam, A.P.P.
Order No.07/Dated- 28.01.2025
1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred against
the order passed by court of Sessions in Cr. Revision No. 151 of 2017
whereby the order passed by the Executive Magistrate, Bermu at
Tenughat in case No. 112/2017 by which proceeding under Section 107
Cr.P.C. was dropped due to lapse of time as prescribed under Section
116 (6) of the Cr.P.C.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is
totally illegal as revisional court has not applied its judicial mind.
Initially, the period of enquiry was extended by the learned S.D.M. and
on the same day, opposite party has appeared, the order was recalled
and proceeding was dropped. Hence, impugned orders are fit to be set
aside and this petition may be allowed.
3. Learned A.P.P. opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the
petitioner and submitted that there is specific provision under Section
116(6) of the Cr.P.C. that if the inquiry could not be completed, the same
should be dropped unless there is special reason to extend the same. In
this case, period of inquiry was twice extended only on the request of
the present petitioner, but on the same day the opposite party appeared
and protested against the extension of period of enquiry on the ground
that the same is illegal in view of various judgments of Hon'ble Patna
High Court. Thereafter, the matter was reheard and impugned order
was passed on merits which suffers no illegality or infirmities. The
revisional court has also considered the entire aspect of the case and
passed order. It is further submitted that it was a proceeding under
Section 107 of Cr.P.C. and now eight years has been lapsed. In that view
of the matter, the proceeding has become infructuous and this petition is
liable to be set aside.
4. It appears that due to dispute of construction of Hanuman temple on the
disputed land, Officer-In-Charge of Jaridih Police Station after
registering non-F.I.R. No.14 of 2017 has given a report dated 19.03.2017
to Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bermo at Tenughat for initiating
proceeding under Section 107 of Cr.P.C. against both the parties. The
S.D.M, Bermo at Tenughat, upon the satisfaction of the police report,
initiated the proceeding under Section 107 of the Cr.P.C. and directed to
both the parties to file their respective show cause. Thereafter, petitioner
filed an application dated 11.09.2017 for the extension of time which was
allowed vide order dated 18.09.2017 for the period of one month. The
petitioner has again filed an application dated 23.10.2017 for the
extension of further period of one month which was also allowed in
absence of second party vide order dated 31.10.2017. Thereafter, the
learned counsel for the second party (O.P. No.2 to 6) appeared on the
same date and it was explained that earlier the order for extension of
time was allowed. Accordingly, vide order dated 01.11.2017, the
proceeding was dropped which was challenged before the Sessions
Court, Bokaro in Revision No.151 of 2017 which was also dismissed and
against the dismissal of the revisional order, the present petition has
been filed.
5. In the above factual background, the provision of Section 116(6) of
Cr.P.C. is required to be considered which runs as follows:-
"The inquiry under this section shall be completed within a period
of six months from the date of its commencement and if such inquiry
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"
6. From the perusal of the provisions of 116(6) of Cr.P.C., it is quite clear
that inquiry under Section 107 Cr.P.C. cannot be made beyond the
period of six months under the special reasons to be recorded.
7. The learned S.D.M. finding no special reason to continue the inquiry
beyond six months has rightly dropped the proceedings. Now more
than 7 years has lapsed. There is no reason to interfere in the impugned
order.
8. In view of the above discussion and reasons, this criminal
miscellaneous petition is disposed of.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Amar/-
