Habibulla Nishad Ahmed Khan v. Special Executive Magistrate & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Quashed
proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. The exercise carried by the respondents in extention of time in terms of section 116 of Cr.P.C. is not within the legal frame as section 116(6) demonstrates that the Magistrate has to record reasons which are special in its character for such extention of…
Judgment
The respondent No.1 – Assistant Commissioner of Police (Special Executive Magistrate) present, appears through learned APP. Heard. The petitioner was involved in C.R. No.246 of 2011 for offence under sections 324, 504 r/w 34 of IPC for incident dated 14th November 2011. He has been slapped with show cause notice under section 111 of Cr.P.C. For furnishing surety in the vrd 2 WP2501/12 sum of Rs.500/- to keep peace and tranquility in the area.
In the same C.R., another accused had approached in writ petition No.2497 of 2012 and this Court by order dated 2nd August 2012 allowed the petition and enquiry proceedings were quashed.
There cannot be other treatment as the prosecution against the present petitioner was arising out of C.R. No.246 of 2011, subject of criminal writ petition No.2497 of 2012.
Operative part
The exercise carried by the respondents in extention of time in terms of section 116 of Cr.P.C. is not within the legal frame as section 116(6) demonstrates that the Magistrate has to record reasons which are special in its character for such extention of period of six months. Though the learned APP submits that the petitioner inspite of notice was absent to attend, that will not be allowing to take benefit of section 116(6) of vrd 3 WP2501/12 Cr.P.C. On both the counts, petition succeeds, the proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and set aside. (K.U. CHANDIWAL J.)
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: proceedings against the petitioner are quashed and
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — ss. 111, 116.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 Oct 2012. The bench was K U CHANDIWAL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.