RANI NARAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On receiving a report submitted, under Section 173(2) of the Code, by the police, on completion of investigation of a case, disclosing commission of offence(s) by one or more persons, if a Chief Judicial Magistrate makes over the case for disposal to another Magistrate, subordinate to him, does such making over of the case necessarily denote that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offence (s) and, having so taken cognizance, made over the case for enquiry or trial to the Magistrate to whom the case was sent for disposal? If a Judicial Magistrate issues process without condoning the delay, when taking cognizance stands barred by a period of limitation as prescribed in Section 468 of the Code, shall the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code, necessarily and invariably, set aside and quash not only the order taking cognizance, but also the first information report or the complaint, as the case may be, and/or the police report (i.e. charge-sheet) submitted under Section 173(2)? These are two questions of paramount importance, which this criminal petition, made under Section 482 of the Code, have raised. How to compute the periods of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'the Code'), which imposes bar to the taking of cognizance by the Court beyond the prescribed periods of limitation and how to construe the commencement of such a period of limitation under Sections 469 read with Sections 471 and 472 of the Code are the two important questions, which have also arisen for determination in this Criminal Petition. Can a Court suo motu invoke the provisions of Section 473 of the Code for the purpose of extending a period of limitation and for taking of cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation or whether an application, request or prayer is required to be made, in this regard, by the prosecution or the complainant.

(2.) Let me, first, take note of the facts and circumstances, which have led to the making of this criminal petition: (i) The Sub-Inspector of Police, Prafulla Bora, lodged an information, in writing, on 10-11-2000, with the Officer-in-charge, Dispur Police Station, alleging, inter alia, thus : on 10-11-2000, when the informant along with his team of police personnel was on duty, at Ganeshguri area, due to 'bandh' call given by a political party, namely, Assam Pradesh Youth Congress-I Party, a group of about 40/50 persons, led by Mrs. Rani Narah, a Member of Parliament, formed an unlawful assembly and forcibly started closing shops and also obstructing the normal flow of traffic. When the police party, led by the informant, raised their objection to such illegal activities of the members of the said political party, the said group of people became violent and started scuffling with the police personnel and obstructed them in discharging their official duties. The rioters damaged the shop causing injuries to the people working there. Treating this information as the First Information Report, Dispur Police Station Case No. 956/2000, under Sections 147/325/353/427/448 IPC, was registered and, on completion of investigation, charge sheet was accordingly laid by the police, on 29-5-2004, against as many as 32 persons, including the present petitioner, as accused. (ii) By order, dated 11-10-2004, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, made over the said case, for disposal, to a Judicial Magistrate, at Guwahati, who, in turn, passed an order, dated 29-10-2004, directing issuance of summons to the accused persons. Without appearing in the case pursuant to the processes issued by the Court, a petition was filed, on 9-9-2005, by the accused petitioner, Rani Narah, stating to the effect inter alia, that since the charge-sheet had been filed, in the case aforementioned, upon expiry of the period of limitation, the taking of cognizance of the offences was barred by the provisions of Section 468 of the Code and, hence, the proceedings of the case, as a whole, be dropped. The learned Judicial Magistrate, then, passed an order, on 14-9-2005, indicating therein to the effect that the case had been made over to her, for the purpose of trial, in terms of Section 192 of the Code, and, hence, when the cognizance of the offences had already been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kamrup, she (i.e., the learned Magistrate, who had come in seisin of the case), had no power to drop the proceeding as had been sought for. The prayer for dropping of the proceeding was accordingly rejected. It is this order, dated 14-9-2005, which stands impugned in the present application made under Section of the Code.

(3.) By making this application under Section 482 of the Code, one of the accused- petitioners, namely, Rani Narah, has sought to get set aside and quashed not merely the order taking cognizance, but the entire criminal proceeding including the charge-sheet.