Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 460 (JHR)

Dinesh Oraon v. The State of Jharkhand

2011-06-07

D.K.SINHA

body2011
Order The petitioner has invoked the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashment of the entire criminal proceeding arising out of Sisai (Bharno) P.S. Case No.60 of 2001, corresponding to G.R.No.482 of 2001, pending before the S.D.J.M., Gumla including the order taking cognizance for the offence under Sections 147/148/149/353/341/342/323/506/427 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Learned Counsel Mr. Zaid under the instruction of Mr. A.K.Chaturvedi submits that the offence as alleged took place on 13.07.2001 and the case was registered on the same day on 13.07.2001 but the police after investigation submitted charge-sheet much beyond three years i.e. after five years. Accordingly cognizance of the offence was taken on 09.08.2006 for the alleged offence mentioned here-in-before. 3. Learned Counsel Mr. Zaid further submits that none of the Section mentioned above carries punishment of imprisonment more than three years and therefore, the cognizance of the offence is barred under Section 468(2) (c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 4. Learned Counsel further added that it is nowhere stated in the cognizance order dated 09.08.2006 that learned S.D.J.M., Gumla has exercised his discretion by condoning the delay under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a reasoned order, therefore, the cognizance of the offence was barred by jurisdiction and therefore, the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioner may be quashed. 5. Heard Miss. Anita Sinha, learned A.P.P. appearing on behalf of the State, who fairly concedes that none of the offence in which cognizance of the offence was taken has got bearing of the sentence for more than three years. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the cognizance of the offence was taken beyond three years of the alleged date of occurrence and it is nowhere mentioned in the impugned order by which cognizance of the offence was taken that the delay was condoned by applying his discretion under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, I find that the cognizance of the offence has taken by the S.D.J.M. is barred by jurisdiction and hence the entire criminal prosecution of the petitioner- Dinesh Oraon is quashed. 7. This petition is allowed.