AJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the order dated 3.1.2002 whereby and whereunder the learned Court below took cognizance for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC in connection with Chandrapura PS Case No. 104 of 2001, T.R. No. 945 of 2001.

(2.) The prosecution case in brief as stated is that one Rajendra Prasad Verma submitted a complaint alleging therein that his son Bikash alias Bikram Kumar Burma aged about 15 years was a student of a School and on 21.9.1998 his son fallen ill due to high fever. Thereafter, the son was taken to DVC Hospital for treatment of ailing son. Dr. Hore had given a prescription and accordingly medicine was purchased and the said medicine was given to his son but no fruitful recovery of ailment was made. Thereafter, his son was placed before the D.V.C. Hospital and the accused No. 2 immediately admitted his son and demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as an interim deposit in the hospital but the complainant has not been able to deposit. However, the treatment has been started by the accused No. 2 also called accused No. 1 by telephone and issue prescription and accordingly medicine was purchased on the basis of the said prescription. Accused No. 1 gave an injection and as a result of which the bodv of his son reduced into black colour and thereafter he died after the expiry, one U.D. case has been registered before the Chandrapur police station and the dead body of Bikash was post-mortemed. The viscera was also preserved for chemical examination but, up till now. no viscera report was submitted by the complainant and accordingly the complaint petition was filed on the basis of which the First Information Report was lodged. The police investigated into the case and submitted charge-sheet under Section 304-A, IPC. Thereafter the learned Magistrate took cognizance by the order impugned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners confined his argument about limitation in taking cognizance and submitted that the cognizance was taken on 3.1.2002 when the occurrence admittedly took place as back as on 27.9.1998 and it was more than three years passed when the cognizance was taken and as such the order impugned is barred by law of limitation under Section 468(1)(c) of the Cr PC. It is further submitted that the punishment for the offence under Section 304-A, IPC is for two years whereas the cognizance was taken after three years. Thus the order will hit by Section 468(1)(2)(c) of the Cr PC which prescribed three years for taking cognizance.