1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Cr.Misc. No.27341 of 2009
Raja Ram Singh, son of Sajawal Singh, resident of Village-Jitwarpur,
P.S. Govindganj, Distrcit-East Champaran ...... Petitioner.
Versus
State Of Bihar
-----------
For the petitioner: Sushmita Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Dr Mayanand Jha, A.P.P.
2 29-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the state.
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 No. 317 of 2003/65 of 2008 as well as order dated
19.08.2003 passed by Judicial Magistrate-Ist Class, Motihari in
N.F. Case No. 27 of 99.
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
2
the offence under Sections-182 & 211 of the Indian Penal Code
was taken against the petitioner.
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 No. 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 02.04.2009 and after that,
petitioner has filed this petition challenging both the orders i.e.
order dated 19.08.2003 and 02.04.2009.
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.
It is further contended on behalf of the petitioner that so
far as Section-211 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, the
3
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.”
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.”
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.
Admittedly, the cognizance has been taken under
Section 182 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code on 19.08.2003
whereas the police submitted final form on 26.05.1999. Therefore,
4
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 his hit by Section-468 (C) of the Cr.P.C.
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-Ist 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.
Accordingly, both the above-said orders stand quashed
and this petition stands disposed of at the admission stage itself.
AKV/- (Hemant Kumar Srivastava,J.)