IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.23432 of 2007 RAJIV RANJAN @ VIKKY & ANR Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : M/s R.C.Thakur & Kamal Kishore Singh, Advocates. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhaya, A.P.P. For O.P. No. 2 : Mr. N.K.Agarwal, Sr. Advocate ------- O R D E R This is an application for quashing the entire criminal proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. in case no. 45(M) 2006 including the order dated 8.5.2007, whereby the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Banmankhi, Purnea, has directed the Officer Incharge under section 122 Cr.P.C. to arrest the first party for not furnishing the bond under section 117 Cr.P.C. against the requirement of the provisions under section 107 Cr.P.C. The facts of the case in short is that petitioners filed a petition before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Banmankhi on 28.5.2007 alleging that O.P. No. 2 was trying to grab the valuable property of the petitioners by filing false cases implicating them. It was also alleged that there was joint business in between the ancestors of both - 2 - the parties and that the second party members were asking the father of the petitioners, under threat to life, to give them the land of Rajhut and further that at the instance of the second party criminals have threatened the father of the first party and that a petition had also been filed earlier. On receipt of the petition the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate sent the petition for inquiry to the concerned Police Station and the Officer Incharge submitted his report vide non F.I.R. No. 2 of 2006 and on the basis thereof a proceeding under section 107 Cr.P.C. between the petitioners (first party) and O.P. no. 2 (second party) was started. The learned Court issued notice to both the parties to file their show cause by 10.3.2006 and in accordance therewith the parties appeared and filed their respective show cause. On 31.5.2006 final orders were passed directing the petitioners to furnish bond as per provision of section 117 Cr.P.C. within a fortnight. The order not having been complied with the second party filed a petition before the learned Magistrate on 19.07.2006 praying for taking appropriate steps as required under - 3 - section 122 Cr.P.C. which was allowed on the same day. Both the orders dated 31.5.2006 and 19.7.2006 were impugned by the petitioners herein before the Sessions Court, Purnea, in Cr. Revision No. 261 of 2006 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 4.11.2006. It appears that by order dated 19.12.2006 the learned Magistrate revised the proceeding and issued notice to both the parties as to why appropriate steps under the provisions of section 116(3) and 117 Cr.P.C. be not initiated. Aggrieved by the said order the members of the second party preferred Cr. Rev. No. 3 of 2007 before the Sessions Court and by order dated 14.2.2007, after hearing both parties, the said revision was allowed calling upon the first party to execute bond under section 117 Cr.P.C. as directed by order dated 31.5.2006 passed in Case No. 45(M)2006. Notwithstanding the order as the directions were not carried out by the first party; the learned Magistrate by order dated 8.5.2007 issued directions under the provisions of section 122 Cr.P.C. The petitioners instead of furnishing the bond have prayed for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding including the order dated - 4 - 8.5.2007. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that proceeding no. 45(M)2006 having died a natural death with the efflux of statutory period neither the Sessions Court nor the learned Magistrate could legally have revised the same and that too when there was no report or fresh materials on the record either by the police or the parties to show that the apprehension was still continuing. It was also submitted that the learned Magistrate had exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering the furnishing of bond without enquiry under section 116 Cr.P.C. Assailing the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for O.P. No. 2 submitted that the order sought to be impugned was fully justified and valid since the petitioners had not obeyed the orders passed in the proceeding prior to its termination by efflux of statutory period. The admitted position that surfaces from the jungle of submissions and relevant dates is that order dated 31.5.2006 had reached its finality as Cr. Revision No. 261 - 5 - of 2006 preferred there against had been dismissed and notwithstanding the same as also having knowledge of the final order the petitioners failed to execute the bond. As such there was no scope for looking into and testing the validity of order dated 31.5.2006, more so when the same is not under challenge. It is in the background of this position that the validity of order dated 8.5.2007 has to be examined. It is an admitted fact that inspite of having knowledge that they were required to execute bond, the petitioners have openly defied the order. As such it is apparent that the petitioners have no respect for law of the land. The learned Magistrate has issued warrants to the officer Incharge, Banmankhi, for their production in Court. I find no illegality in the order dated 8.5.2007. However, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Court below within 6 weeks from today and execute the bond as directed under order dated 31.5.2006. Till such time the petitioners will not be arrested. With the aforesaid modification, the application is disposed of. The Patna High Court The 11th July, 2008 Spd/ A.F.R. (Abhijit Sinha, J.)