CRIMINAL MISCELLANIOUS No.6535 OF 2006 ******* In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. ******* SUNITA SINGH-----------------PETITIOENR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. BIBHISAN SINGH 3. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH --------OPP.PARTY ******* FOR THE PETITIONER : Mr. RAM SUHAWAN SINGH FOR OPP.PARTY NO.2 : M/S. AMIT PRAKASH, SONI SRIVASTAVA & ANJANI Kr. JHA FOR OPP.PARTY NO.3 : Mr. BINDESHWAR PD. SINGH FOR THE STATE : Mr. ATUL CHANDRA ******* P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHILESH CHANDRA Akhilesh Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State, and learned counsel for opposite party no.3, Sri Bindeshwar Pd. Singh. 2. This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of 2 order dated 18th December, 2005 passed by Subdivisional Officer, Patna Sadar, in Case no. 565 (M) of 2005 under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 3. Admittedly, between the parties at the instance of petitioner one proceeding under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was initiated and by the impugned order it has been dropped on the ground of expiry of period of limitation. 4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner against the impugned order is that parties had already appeared well within statutory period and filed their respective show causes annexing documents etc., even on behalf of the petitioner prayer was also made to convert / initiate proceeding under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure but for the reasons passed known to the Court no heed was paid and proceeding was permitted to expire due to lapse of statutory period. The learned members of the Bar failed to produce any material to show when the proceeding under Section 144 was initiated. Of course, there is one 3 Police report dated 20th July, 2005 recommending initiation of the proceeding and if acting thereon immediately any such proceeding was initiated which must have crossed the statutory period much before but in absence of any such initiation nothing more can be said. 5. The Code of Criminal Procedure in order to meet urgent matters of apprehended danger has provided different recourses one of which is proclamation of an order under Section 144 which reads as follows: “ 144 Power to issue order in urgent case of nuisance or apprehended danger:- (1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in his behalf there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this Section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 134, direct a person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to prevent obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety, or a disturbance of the public tranquillity, or a riot, or an affray. (2) And order under this section may, in 4 cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte. (3) An order under this Section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. (4) No order under this Section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof; Provided that, if the State Government considers it necessary so to do for preventing danger to human life, health or safety or for preventing a right or any affray, it may, by notification, direct that an order made by a Magistrate under this section shall remain in force for such further period not exceeding 6 months from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate would have, but for such order, expired, as it may specify in the said notification. (5) Any Magistrate, may, either on his own motion or on the application of any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made under this Section, by himself or any Magistrate subordinate to him or by his predecessor-in- office. (6) The State Government may, either on its own motion or on the application or any person aggrieved, rescind or alter any order made by it under the proviso to sub Section (4 ). (7) Where an application under sub Section (5), or sub Section (6) is received, the Magistrate, or the State Government, as the case may be, shall afford to the applicant an early opportunity of appearing before him or it, either in person or by pleader and showing cause against the order, and if the Magistrate or the State Government, as the case may be, rejects the application wholly or in part, he or it shall record in writing the reasons for so doing” 5 6. It is true that any such proceeding which has a fixed period of life the courts dealing such cases must take care of the time limit and pass an appropriate order well within the statutory period as provided under Sub-section (4) above. 7. The petitioner, in the instant case, now if has any grievance is at liberty to invoke jurisdiction of the authority under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or competent civil court may take shelter of concerned Legal Services Authority. 8. With the above observation, this application stands disposed of. (Akhilesh Chandra, J.) Patna High Court, The 29th September, 2010. AAhmad/(AFR).