Judgment L. P. N. Shahdeo, J. 1. This is an application under Sec.482, Criminal procedure Code in the following manner. 2. According to the report of the Constable-655, a motor-cycle bearing no. BHV-199 was driven in a very high speed, as a result of which it dashed against a cement pillar and all the three persons riding on that motor-cycle were thrown away. The driver of the motor-cycle sustained injuries. The police registered a case under Sections 279 and 337 Indian Penal Code. After investigation of the case, charge-sheet was submitted and the learned C. J. M. , took cognizance of the offence on 23-6-79. This order of taking cognizance is being challenged in this application. 3. Mr. Tetarbe, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the whole prosecution case and the submission of the charge-sheet is bad in law as the investigation was not completed within the prescribed period of six months, under section 167 (5) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 4. Admitted position in this case that the accident had taken place on 20th September, 1978 and the charge-sheet was submitted on 17-5-79. From the records, it appears that the petitioners father had excuted the bail bond and, thereafter he was released on 22-9-78. Sec.167 (5) of the Criminal procedure Code lays down as follows : "if in any case triable by a Magistrate is a summons case, the investigation is not concluded within a period of six months, from the dale on which the accused was arrested, the Magistrate shall make an order stopping further investigation into the offence, unless the officer making the investigation satisffes the Magistrate that for special reasons and in the interests of justice, the continuation of investigation beyond the period of six months is necessary. " 5. Admittedly in this case, investigation was not completed within a period of six months, either from the date of the occurrence or from the date of the arrest of the accused, which are indicated above. The charge-sheet was submitted after about 8 months of the accident and the investigation was not completed within a period of six months as prescribed under the law. Sec.167 (5)appears to-be mandatory in nature, because it has prescribed a limit for investigation of petty nature of cases which are tried as summon cases. The charge-sheet was submitted after about 8 months of the accident and the investigation was not completed within a period of six months as prescribed under the law. Sec.167 (5)appears to-be mandatory in nature, because it has prescribed a limit for investigation of petty nature of cases which are tried as summon cases. Apparently in this case, the mandatory provisions of the Code has not been complied with, rather the charge-sheet has been submitted in violation of it. It was the duty cast upon the Magistrate to stop such investigation if it is not completed within a period of six months If the charge-sheet is submitted for such petty cases, after six months, the learned Magistrate cannot taken cognizance of such offences and in law he was required to stop investigation immediately, after expiry of six months, from the date of the arrest of the accused. The stoppage of the investigation is the general rule and extension of time is an exception in this scheme. 6. To seek speedy justice is fundamental right of the accused and litigant. It is demand of the time. This principles to ensure speedy justice in petty nature of cases, has been engrafted in Sec.167 (5) of the Code. A legal duty is upon the Magistrate to stop investigation of such nature of petty cases after termination of six months from the date of arrest of the accused, unless for special reasons, the investigation officer satisfies the Magistrate for extension of the period of such investigation and on refusal a right has been given to satisfy the Sessions Judge, who can also issue necessary directions in this regard under section 167 (6) of the Code. Therefore, under the mandate of the law, the magistrate was bound to stop investigation after termination of the statutory period and his failure to do so, amounts to deprivation of a statutory benefit conferred on the accused. The subsequent events, therefore, of submission of charge-sheet and taking cognizance of the offence by issuing process is bad in law, without complying with the enterior requirement of Sec.167 (5) of the Code. 7. The subsequent events, therefore, of submission of charge-sheet and taking cognizance of the offence by issuing process is bad in law, without complying with the enterior requirement of Sec.167 (5) of the Code. 7. My view further finds support from a case reported in Babulal V/s. The state of Rajasthan, 1982 Cr LJ 1001, in which it was held that Section 167 (5) is mandatory in character and it is a duty enjoined upon the Magistrate to see that no investigation should continue in summons cases beyond six months from the date of the arrest of the accused without his permission. In that case also, the cognizance was taken after six months from the date of the arrest of the accused, which was quashed. Similar is the case here. Here also, the investigation was not completed within six months, but the learned Magistrate did not stop the investigation, which he must have done in the eyes of law. Therefore, his order taking cognizance suffers from grave irregularity and requires interference by this High Court. 8. In the result, this application is allowed and the order taking cognizance of the offence is hereby quashed. Application allowed.