ADHIR CHANDRA TIWARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners herein seek for quashing of order dated 9-3-1992 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate. Hazaribagh, whereby he took cognizance of the offence under sections 182, 211 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioners in Case No. V13/9 1.

(2.) The brief fact giving rise to the impugned order are like this: One Mosamati Manjhiain lodged first information report against one Bhaktidhar Mishra for an offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code. After registration of the case, the Investigation Officer got the statement of Mosamati Majhiain recorded by the court under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which she supported the allegations made in the first information report. However, after the investigation the case was found to be false and final report was submitted on 17-2-1989 indicating the case to be false. Subsequently, Inspector Barun Kumar of Police Station Vishnugarh filed criminal complaint dated 3-3-1991 in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hazaribagh against the petitioners for offence under sections 182, 211 read with section 109 of the Indian Penal Code for their having abetted Mosamati Majhiain to lodge a false case against Bhaktidhar Mishra and their having instigated the aforesaid prosecutrix to make a false statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the offence under section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed in relation to making of a statement under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure therefore the court below could not have taken cognizance of the offence without there being a complaint made by the court. As regards the other offence under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code the contention of the learned counsel is that since the offence is punishable with a term of imprisonment of loss than one year. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides a limitation of one year for taking cognizance of such an offence and as the cognizance in this case has been taken after expiry of that period cognizance order cannot be sustained.