IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.43841 of 2007 RAM NARESH SINGH Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. Rajkumar Singh ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar. Mr. Bipin Kumar. For the O.P.no.2 : Mr. Pankaj Kumar. ----- 3/ 12.01.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Party no.2. The petitioner and opposite party no.2 are neighbours. A dispute amongst them with regard to certain construction led to filing of Case No. 114M of 2003 by the petitioner against the opposite party no.2 and Case No. 115M of 2003 by the opposite party no.2 against the petitioner. While the petitioner decided to let peace prevail between them by not pursuing the matter against the opposite party no.2, opposite party no.2 thought otherwise. This led to the final order dated 19.06.2004 by the Executive Magistrate holding that it was necessary to require the petitioner to execute the bond to maintain peace under Section 107 Cr. P.C. The petitioner approached the Sub-divisional Magistrate against the order who on 26.07.2004 set aside the order dated 19.06.2004 as having been passed beyond time. The opposite party no.2 aggrieved with the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate preferred Criminal Revision no. 12 of 2004/455 of 2004, which set aside the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate as being without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Sub-divisional Magistrate had no powers to interfere except with regard to a pending 2 case under Section 411 Cr. P.C. by withdrawing proceedings from the Executive Magistrate while the proceedings were no more pending when it was finally disposed off on 19.06.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under Section 116(iv) Cr. P.C. proceedings under Section 107 Cr. P.C. were required to be completed within six months. The petitioner entered appearance on 11.06.2003. The proceedings were, therefore, to be concluded by 11.12.2003. Any extension thereof under the aforesaid provision could have been before the expiry of six months and for reasons to be discussed. In the facts of the present case, admittedly an application for extension of the proceedings was filed by opposite party no.2 before the expiry of six months but the orders for extension came to be passed after the expiry of six months. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 finds it difficult to oppose the submission that the actual order extending the life of the proceeding came to be passed after the expiry of six months. If that be the correct position in the law and the Executive Magistrate acted without jurisdiction after the expiry of six months without any valid orders for extension of the proceedings, the orders of the Sub-divisional Magistrate dated 26.07.2004 loses its significance. The validity or invalidity of the order of the Sub-divisional Magistrate on that ground was hardly the subject matter of correction in the revisional proceedings. The Revisional Court does not appear to have appropriately discussed the aspect of non-extension of the period 3 of the proceeding. While acknowledging that there had been no orders for extension of Case No. 115M of 2003 before expiry of six months from the date of initiation of the proceeding, the Revisional Court considered the same irrelevant because of the petitioner not questioning the same. The Revisional Court considered the same sufficient to lend validity to what was otherwise an invalid order. In an entire conspectus of the matter, this Court is satisfied that the order of the Revisional Court is fit to be set aside. The order dated 13.02.2007 in Criminal Revision no. 12 of 2004/455 is accordingly set aside. The application stands allowed. S.B.P. (Navin Sinha, J.)