Criminal Misc. No.M-4621 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No.M-4621 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:08.05.2009 Narinder Nath .....Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Narinder Nath under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2009 Annexure P.4 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula affirming the order dated 5.2.2008 Annexure P.3 rendered by the City Magistrate, Panchkula whereby accused- respondents No.2 and 3 have been acquitted. The brief facts giving rise to this petition are that Surinder Pal Singh son of Ajmer Singh is the owner of the land bearing Khewat No.8/27, Khasra No.90 situated in Village Raipur Rani as per jamabandi for the year 1990-1991, which is on lease with him for 99 years. He has executed power of attorney dated 19.5.1997 qua this land in favour of the petitioner. On 31.7.2007 at about 7:00 A.M., the accused- respondents No.2 and 3 accompanied by other accused persons made an attempt to dispossess the Criminal Misc. No.M-4621 of 2009 (O&M) -2- petitioner forcibly from this land. Besides this, they threatened to kill the petitioner and to kidnap his children. Upon this, the petitioner moved an application to the SHO of Police Station, Raipur Rani. On its basis, DDR No.18 Annexure P.1 dated 31.7.2007 under Sections 107/151 of Cr.P.C was recorded. Vide order dated 5.2.2008, the learned trial Court released the accused persons. Feeling aggrieved therewith, the petitioner preferred a revision which was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula vide her order dated 7.1.2009 Annexure P.4. Being dissatisfied with Annexures P.3 as also P.4, he has filed this petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with great eloquence that in view of the objections filed well before the termination of proceedings in the Court of learned City Magistrate, the proceedings could not come to an end. The learned Magistrate was required to proceed further with the matter. Thus, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. I have given a thoughtful consideration to this submission. Annexure P.3/T, copy of the impugned order dated 5.2.2008 rendered by the learned City Magistrate, Panchkula reads in the following terms:- “File presented. Case called. The accused are present on bail. Record was perused. This case is pending for the last 6 months. Neither there is any threat of peace and nor either of the parties have filed any objection against others. Thus, there is no necessity to further proceed with the case. Thus, the accused are released. File be consigned to record. Order has been pronounced.” Criminal Misc. No.M-4621 of 2009 (O&M) -3- It is own case of the petitioner that the calendera under Section 107/151 of Cr.P.C was presented before the aforesaid City Magistrate on 1.8.2007. The same was disposed of vide order dated 5.2.2008 under Section 116(6) Cr.P.C. On its plain language this provision contains two- fold legislative mandate viz. : (1) it determines the span of life of the proceedings under Sec. 107 as six months, and (2) it lays down the consequence of non-compliance with its provisions. The use of expressions “shall, on the expiry of the said period, stand terminated” leave no room for doubt that in the event of the inquiry, not being completed within the prescribed period, the proceedings come to an end automatically and no order of the Magistrate is, at all, called for. Indeed, the Magistrate becomes functus officio and he is divested of the seisin of the case. So, he cannot revive the same unless, of course, he exercises the power vesting in him to continue the proceedings by recording special reasons therefor. In other words, on automatic termination of the inquiry by operation of law, the same is dead and gone for all intents and purposes and life cannot be instilled into it by the Magistrate. It does not survive even for an order by the revisional Court to extend its life. Under sub-Section (6) of Sec. 116, Cr.P.C the inquiry into the truth of the information on which the order under Sec. 111 has been passed against a person shall be completed within a period of six months from the date of the commencement of proceeding and if such enquiry is not completed, on the expiry of such period, the proceedings shall stand terminated, unless special reasons are recorded in writing by the Magistrate. The inquiry under Section 107 of Cr.P.C has to be completed within a Criminal Misc. No.M-4621 of 2009 (O&M) -4- period of six months from the date of its commencement. Here in this case as is borne out from Annexure P.3/T, the proceedings were instituted on 1.8.2007. These were terminated on 5.2.2008. The proceedings would have been continued, if the period beyond 6 months had been extended by recording special reasons by the learned Magistrate. There being no such order, the proceedings had been terminated automatically. Sequelly, the learned Magistrate had become functus officio. The learned Additional Sessions Judge in her order has mentioned with specificity that “as revealed by the trial Court's record, some objections were filed by the petitioner, but it is evident from the record that the same were received by the official of trial Court on 6.2.2008, whereas the proceedings in this case vide order dated 5.2.2008 stood terminated.” In the face of these observations, if for a little while, it is assumed that certain objections were filed by the present petitioner before the learned City Magistrate, the same had been received by the trial Court's official, when the proceedings stood already terminated. The City Magistrate was not competent to instill the life in such termination of the inquiry by passing any order on expiry of the statutory period. Either party by filing objections cannot reinvigorate the inquiry proceedings on expiry of the said period. In view of the preceding discussion, this petition is dismissed in limine. May 08, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE Whether to be referred to the Reporter? Yes/No