IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. REV. No.865 of 2008 1. SHIV SHANKAR TIWARI S/O SITA RAM TIWARI 2. RAJESHWAR TIWARI S/O LATE SINGHASAN TIWARI 3. MUNNA TIWARI S/O RAMA SHANKAR TIWARI 4. RAVINDRA TIWARI S/O SITA RAM TIWARI 5. SRI RAM TIWARI S/O LATE SINGHASAN TIWARI 6. GANGA SAGAR TIWARI S/O SITA RAM TIWARI 7. RAMA SHANKAR TIWARI S/O SRI RAM TIWARI 8. SITA RAM TIWARI S/O LATE SINGHASAN TIWARI ALL ARE R/O VILL-BARISWAN, P.S. SHAHPUR, DIST. BHOJPUR ----- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI S/O SARJU TIWARI 3. VIJAY TIWARI S/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR TIWARI BOTH 2 AND 3 ARE R/O VILL. BARISWAN, P.S. SHAHPUR, DIST.BHOJPUR --- OPP. PARTIES. ----------- 04 13.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. In spite of issuance of notice and service thereof nobody has appeared on behalf of the opposite party nos. 2 and 3. Petitioners are second party to the proceeding initiated under Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟). They are aggrieved by the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur in Misc. case no. 819 of 2007 as also the appellate order dated 28.06.2008 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court –II, Ara, Bhojpur in Cr. Appeal no. 78 of 2007. By the order impugned passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, the petitioners have been directed to execute bond(s) with two sureties. While assailing the order(s) impugned, it is contended that the enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of the Code has not been completed within the period of 06 months. There is no order on record extending the period of 06 months as provided under Section 116(6) of the Code. It is submitted that on this count itself the orders impugned are fit to be interfered with and set aside. It is next contended that the authority/Court under the Code cannot direct for execution of bond(s) with sureties which is contrary to the ratio laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rang Lal Mahto & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar since reported in 1979 PLJR 1. Considering the said submission of the petitioners, this Court passed the following order on 09.02.2009 :- “Heard. Learned counsel submits that order of the learned Magistrate directing for execution of bond with two sureties is not permissible in law. He further submits that final order passed beyond six months of the date of initiation of proceeding is not permissible under Section 116(6) of the Cr. P.C. save and except for the reasons specifically to be recorded for the same. Issue notice to opposite party nos. 2 and 3 to show cause as to why this application be not disposed of at the admission stage itself, for which requisite etc. under ordinary process must be filed within one week, failing which this application shall stand rejected without further reference to a Bench. Pending final hearing of the case, operation of the impugned order dated 15.10.2007 passed in Misc. case No. 819/2007 will remain stayed. The case pending in the writ application would not come in the way of the Magistrate for initiating fresh proceeding.” It is contended that no untoward situation relating to flow of drainage water has been reported after the order passed by learned Magistrate inasmuch as the opposite parties has not appeared in this proceeding to place on record the aforesaid factum if any. It appears from order dated 09.02.2009, this Court while issuing notices on opposite parties categorically observed that pendency of the present proceeding would not come in the way of the Magistrate from initiating a fresh proceeding. In view of the particular facts of the case and in the light of submissions made on behalf of the petitioners this Court is inclined to interfere with the orders impugned. Accordingly orders dated 28.06. 2008 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No II, Ara, Bhojpur in Cr. Appeal no. 78 of 2007 and the order dated 15.10.2007 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jagdishpur in Misc. case no. 819 of 2007, are hereby quashed and set aside. This order shall, however, not preclude the authority/Court under the Code from initiating a fresh proceeding, if the situation so warrants. Sym/ ( Kishore K. Mandal, J.)