HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Crl. Revision No. 171 of 2004 Harish Singh Bisht S/o late Sri Mohan Singh Bisht, R/o village Sarso Almora, District Almora, At present Mohalla Dabkiya, Police Station Kotwali, District Almora. -----Applicant/ Revisionist. Versus State of Uttarakhand and 2 others. ------- Respondents Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, Smt. Mamta Bisht, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. Dated: 9th April 2008 Hon’ble Dharam Veer, J. This revision u/s 397/401 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) has been directed against the issuance of notice/order dated 02.08.2004 whereby the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almora, satisfying with the report of Station Officer, Almora dated 25.07.2004, has issued notice to the revisionist u/s 111 Cr.P.C. and directed him to remain present before the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almora and to show cause as to why a person bond of a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and surety bond to the like amount may not be executed from him for a period of one year to maintain public peace. 2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present revision, are that the Station House Officer, Almora submitted a Challani Report on 25.07.2004 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almora with the averments that on 02.07.2004 the complainant Sunil Kumar resident of Tamranagari, Dugalkhola, Almora has lodged a report in the Police Station relating to case crime no. 558/04 u/s 452,504,506 I.P.C. and one u/s 3(1)10 S.C.S.C. Act State vs. Harish Bisht which was being investigated. On 23.07.2004 the said complainant had again lodged a Non Cognizable Report no. 17/04 u/s 506 I.P.C. and on examination it was found that from the date when the complainant has lodged the first report, the revisionist Harish Singh Bisht had started animosity with the complainant; there is strain in between the parties; any heinous incident can be happened with the apprehension of public nuisance. Therefore, report u/s 107/116 Cr.P.C. was submitted against both the parties. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almora, satisfying with the report of Station Officer, Almora dated 25.07.2004, passed the order impugned, which is under challenge in the instant revision. 3. I have heard Sri G.S. Negi, Adv. holding brief of Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist, and Smt. Mamta Bisht, learned A.G.A. for the State. None is present for respondent no. 3/complainant. 4. During the course of arguments Sri G.S. Negi Adv. holding brief of Sri Vinod Sharma, learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the revision has rendered infructuous, therefore he does not want to press the revision at this stage. At this juncture learned A.G.A. has submitted that as per the provision of Sub Section 6 of Section 116 of the Cr.P.C. 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 said period, stand terminated, therefore the impugned notice shall automatically be deemed to be terminated. 5. Otherwise also, on perusal of the record and after going through the order passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Almora dated 02.08.2004, I do not find any illegality, incorrectness or impropriety in the impugned order. The revision is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 6. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed being infructuous. Interim order dated 06.10.2004 passed by this Court stands vacated. (Dharam Veer, J.) NCM: