Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1583 (PAT)

Raja Ram Singh v. State of Bihar

2011-07-29

HEMANT KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2011
ORDER By the Court.- 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state. 2. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by Vth Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr. Revision Nos. 317 of 2003/65 of 2008 as well as order dated 19.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Motihari in N.F. Case No. 27 of 99. 3. It would appear from the record that the petitioner lodged Govindganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 1998 for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code against Ranjan Kumar Singh and some unknown persons in respect of alleged kidnapping of his son. The aforesaid Govindganj P.S. Case No. 111 of 1998 was investigated by the police and after investigation, the police submitted final form showing the accusation untrue and the police also prayed to initiate a proceeding under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The aforesaid final form was submitted on 26.05.1999. The final form was accepted by the concerned Court and subsequently, vide order dated 19. 08.2003, cognizance of the offence under Sections 182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code was taken against the petitioner. 4. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid order dated 19.08.2003 passed in Trial No. 730 of 2003 (N.F. Case No 27 of 1999) before Sessions Court by filing Cr. Revision Nos. 317 of 2003/65 of 2008 but the aforesaid Criminal Revision was dismissed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge. East Champaran, Motihari vide order dated 12.04.2009 and after that, petitioner has filed this petition challenging both the orders i.e. order dated 19.08.2003 and 02.04.2009, 5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maximum punishment for the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal. Code is up to six months and according to prosecution case itself, the final form was submitted in the year. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the maximum punishment for the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal. Code is up to six months and according to prosecution case itself, the final form was submitted in the year. 1999 whereas cognizance has been taken in the year, 2003, so the cognizance for the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is barred by Section 468(C) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which says that- (1) "Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an, offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation and (2) The period of limitation shall be- (b) six months, if any offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. 6. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that so far as Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned. the same is hit by Section 195 (i)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which runs as follows"(b)(i) No Court shall take cognizance in an offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, namely, Sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228 when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation any proceeding in any Court, except the complaint in writing of that Court or by such office of the Court as the Court may authorize in writing in this behalf or some other Court to which that Court is subordinate." 7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the instant case, admittedly, the Court has taken cognizance on the basis of police report and no written complaint has been filed by concerned Court in which alleged offence is said to have been taken place. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision reported in AIR 1979, SC 777 in which the Apex Court of this country has held as follows:- "If the cognizance is taken on the final form, the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code unless, there is written complaint of the Court or the Court to which the concerned Court is subordinate." 8. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor though supported the impugned order on the fact but he could not succeed to controvert the decision placed on behalf of the petitioner. 9. Admittedly, the cognizance has been taken under Sections 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.08.2003 whereas the police submitted final form on 26.05.1999, Therefore, cognizance of the aforesaid offence has been taken much beyond the period of limitation and learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the cognizance under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is hit by Section 468 (C) of the Cr.P.C. 10. So far as Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, admittedly, in the present case, police submitted final form praying therein to initiate proceeding under Section 211 and 182 of the Indian Penal Code and the concerned Court in which the final form was submitted did not file any complaint petition against the petitioner. So, in view of Section 195(i)(c) of the Cr.P.C. as well as the above-said decision. I have no option except to quash the order dated 19.08.2003 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-1st Class. East Champaran, Motihari as well as the order dated 02.04.2009 passed by learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, East Champaran, Motihari in Cr. Rev. No. 317 of 2003/65- of 2008. 11. Accordingly, both the above-said orders stand quashed and this petition stands disposed of at the admission stage itself. Petition disposed of.