M. R. MALLICK, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 7. 1. 1981 passed by Sri R. K. Kar, Sessions Judge, Hooghly affirming the order dated 5. 11. 1980 passed by Sri B. N. Sammaddar Sub divisional Judicial Magistrate, Serampore, Hooghly, taking cognizance of the offence in G. R. Case No. 510 of 1980 under sections 341/447/323/ 506 Indian Penal Code. The facts are briefly as follows: ( 2 ) THE present petitioners were accused in a summons case which arose out of the Serampore P. S. Case No. 54 dated 22. 4. 1980. They were arrested by the police on 22. 4. 1980 and were produced before the learned Magistrate on 23. 4. 1980 on which date they were granted bail. The petitioners were accused in a case, which was triable under the summons procedure. The Investigating Police Officer, from time to time, prayed for time to submit the final report. Last such prayer for submitting the final report was made on 7. 10. 1980. On that date as the Investigating Officer prayed for further time as the injury report had not yet been received by him, the learned Magistrate fixed 4. 11. 1980 for Investigating Officer's report in final form and appearance of the accused persons. The charge-sheet was submitted on 4. 11. 1980. The present petitioners filed an application under section 167 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Magistrate before the filing of the charge sheet submitting that as the accused persons had been arrested on 22. 4. 1980, the investigation had to be completed in this case by 21. 10. 1980, and that as the charge-sheet had not been filed within a period of six months from the date of arrest of the present petitioners the mandatory provisions of sub-section (5) of section 167, Criminal Procedure Code has been violated and the accused petitioners are entitled to be discharged. ( 3 ) THE learned Magistrate appears to have taken the view that as he had allowed the Investigating Officer time to submit the charge sheet by 4. 11. 1980 on 7. 10. 1980, there was extension of time granted by him till 4. 11. 1980 and when the charge-sheet had been submitted on 4. 11. 1980, it was filed within the time extended by him. 11. 1980 on 7. 10. 1980, there was extension of time granted by him till 4. 11. 1980 and when the charge-sheet had been submitted on 4. 11. 1980, it was filed within the time extended by him. Consequently, the learned Magistrate dismissed the application of the present petitioners and took cognizance of the offence against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet submitted. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, the present petitioners moved the Sessions Judge in revision. The learned Sessions Judge upheld the action of the learned Magistrate holding that when the Magistrate extended the period of investigation till 4. 11. 1980, there was no illegality in submitting the chargesheet on 4. 11. 1980 and taking of cognizance of the offence by the learned Magistrate on that date. ( 5 ) BEING aggrieved, the petitioners have moved this court in revision. The inherent jurisdiction of this court has been invoked also. ( 6 ) THE present petition has been resisted by the State. ( 7 ) THERE can be no doubt that when the present petitioners moved before the Sessions Judge in revision a second revision before this court is barred under section 397 (3) and 399 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Let me now see whether this court would invoke the inherent power to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence on the basis of charge sheet admittedly filed beyond the period of six months from the date of arrest of the present petitioners. ( 8 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, the decision reported in 83 C. W. N. 559 has been cited. It is urged that Manoj Kumar Mukherjee, J. in the said decision has clearly held that when the charge-sheet was submitted beyond a period of six months from the date of the arrest, the charge-sheet was without jurisdiction and cognizance of the offence could not have been taken on the same by the Magistrate. In that view, the learned Judge quashed the proceeding pending against the petitioners in that case. It appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that the learned Sessions Judge appears to distinguish the said decision of the learned Judge as, according to him, the facts were different. On perusing the decision reported in 83 C. W. N. 559 I am of the view that the facts are similar. It appears from the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge that the learned Sessions Judge appears to distinguish the said decision of the learned Judge as, according to him, the facts were different. On perusing the decision reported in 83 C. W. N. 559 I am of the view that the facts are similar. In that case also the learned Magistrate on the prayer of the 1. 0. fixed January 24, 1978 for submitting the report in final form. However, in that case, the 1. 0. on October 7, 1977 prayed for extension of time till October 28, 1977, but the learned Magistrate granted more time to the 1. 0. but the date fixed for submitting the report in final form was on a date beyond a period of six months from the date of arrest of the accused persons. The learned Judge held that before the expiry of six months it was incumbent upon the investigating agency to pray for extension of time stating special grounds as to why he could not complete the investigation within a period of six months and the learned Judge could for special reason, below extension of time for completing the investigation. Even though in that case the date was actually fixed by the learned Magistrate which was a date subsequent to the date of the expiry of the period of six months. The learned Judge held that often in that case, prior to the expiry of the period of six months, it was the incumbent duty of the investigating Police Officer to move the Magistrate praying for extension of time permitting him to investigate the case beyond the period of six months. As there was no such prayer, the charge- sheet submitted by the police beyond the period of six months and taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate was held by the learned Judge to be illegal and the proceeding was quashed. The same view has also been taken in the two decisions both of which are Division Bench decisions of this court. ( 9 ) IN Ram Kumar v. The State1 it has been held that the prayer for extension by the investigating agency has to be filed prior to the expiry of the period of six months and when no such prayer was made, taking of cognizance was illegal. ( 9 ) IN Ram Kumar v. The State1 it has been held that the prayer for extension by the investigating agency has to be filed prior to the expiry of the period of six months and when no such prayer was made, taking of cognizance was illegal. In Jay Sankar Jha v. The State2 the Division Bench also took the similar view. It is also found from the said decision that to that case also the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate allowed time to the 1. 0. from time to time to complete the investigation and on the last such date charge-sheet was submitted. But in the meantime, six months had already expired. The Division Bench held that before the expiry of the period of six months no prayer in any of the applications filed by the 1. 0. was made for special reasons and in the interest of justice for the continuation of the investigation beyond six months. In this case also the petition of the 1. 0. on 7. 10. 1980, did not disclose any such special reason. It was only indicated that he was not liable to submit the charge-sheet on 7. 10. 1980 as the injury report had not yet been collected. The six months period was to expire on 21. 10. 1980. Therefore, still a fortnights time was left for completion of the investigation within a period of six months. There was no specific prayer by the 1. 0. that he was seeking for permission to investigate the case beyond the period of six months. It was merely a routine prayer for grant of time to complete the investigation. That was not a petition praying for extension of time to investigate the offence beyond the period of six months specifying some special reason. ( 10 ) IN that view, both the learned Magistrate as well as the learned Sessions Judge took an erroneous view period of remuneration, Charge-sheet was extended on the prayer of 1. 0. In view of the decision reported in 83 C W. N. 559 and the above two Division Bench decisions referred to by me, there can be no doubt that the order of the learned Magistrate accepting the charge-sheet and taking cognizance when the charge-sheet was admittedly filed beyond the period of six months was clearly illegal. 0. In view of the decision reported in 83 C W. N. 559 and the above two Division Bench decisions referred to by me, there can be no doubt that the order of the learned Magistrate accepting the charge-sheet and taking cognizance when the charge-sheet was admittedly filed beyond the period of six months was clearly illegal. When there is a clear violation of the mandatory provisions of law the taking of cognizance having been taken illegally, the continuance of the trial of the present petitioners would be nothing but an abuse of the process of the court. In such circumstances, this is a fit case in which inherent power of this court to quash the proceeding should be exercised. ( 11 ) IN the result, the revision application is allowed and the Rule is made absolute. The proceeding continuing against the present petitioners being G. R. Case No. 510 of 1980 be hereby quashed. .