SHAMBHU SINGH @ ABHISHEK SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of order dated 4.3.2008 passed in Cr. Revision No. 814 of 2007/5 of 2008 by Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C.III, Patna. The petitioner has further prayed for quashing of order dated 10.5.2007 in Pirbahore P.S. Case No. 106 of 2004, G.R. Case No. 1604 of 2004 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna. By the said order, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 224 and 225/34 of the Indian Penal Code. By order dated 4.3.2008, the revisional court has affirmed the order of cognizance passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

(2.) Shri Arvind Kumar Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that in the present case, alleged occurrence had taken place in the year 2004. The offence alleged was under Sections 224 and 225 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that for both the offences, period of maximum imprisonment has been prescribed as two years. However, in the present case, cognizance order was passed on 10.5.2007. It was argued that the order of cognizance was barred under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure due to the reason that maximum period for taking cognizance for such offence is three years from the date of occurrence. It was argued that in mechanical manner, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of offences even after expiry of period of limitation and in similar manner, the learned revisional court has rejected the Criminal Revision. On the sole ground of limitation, learned Counsel for the petitioner has prayed for quashing of order of cognizance.

(3.) Smt. Indu Bala Pandey, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State has opposed the prayer of petitioner. It was submitted by her that immediately after the occurrence i.e. on the same date, F.I.R. was lodged and thereafter, the case was thoroughly investigated and charge sheet was submitted on 30.4.2007. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the informant was none else, but he was a police official and delay has not occurred during the pendency of the case before the learned Magistrate, but delay has been occurred by the police itself. Investigation was not completed within three years and after expiry of three years, charge sheet was submitted in the present case.