Dismissed

Niraj Kumar Sinha and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Patna HC5 Dec 2012CR. MISC./27758/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a criminal miscellaneous application challenging an order summoning petitioners for offences under IPC sections 418 and 465. The petitioners urged the order was barred by a three-year limitation period. The court held the limitation period was calculated from the date of complaint filing, which fell within three years of the occurrence, rejecting the bar under section 468 Cr.P.

What did the court decide?

The application challenging the summons order is dismissed.

Niraj Kumar Sinha and Anr. Vs State of Bihar and Anr. — Patna HC (2012) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27758 of 2010 (3) dt.05-12-2012

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶3

Criminal Miscellaneous No.27758 of 2010

¶4

====================================================== 1.Niraj Kumar Sinha son of Shree Narendra Kumar Sinha. 2. Narendra Kumar Sinha son of Late Ganesh Sinha. Both are residents of Barmasia, Mahant Nagar Police Station Sahayak Thana, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1.State Of Bihar. 2.Kishan Sharma son of Baleshwar Sharma, resident of Village- Barari Hat, Police Station Barari and District-Katihar. .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL ORDER 3 05-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P. for the State.

¶5

This application is directed against the order dated 6.5.2010 passed in C.A. Case No.1948 of 2009 by the court of Sri Randhir Kumar, Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Katihar, whereby on enquiry under section 202 Cr.P.C. he summoned the accused petitioners finding prima facie case under sections 418 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶6

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that in the complaint petition the occurrence is said to be of 1.4.2007 and the impugned order whereby the accused petitioners have been summoned finding prima facie

¶7

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27758 of 2010 (3) dt.05-12-2012

¶8

case under sections 418 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code has been passed on 6.5.202010 after three years of the occurrence. According to section 468 of Cr.P.C. if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years, the period of taking cognizance would be of three years. But in the present case the impugned order summoning the accused petitioners has been passed after three years for offences under sections 418 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code regarding which the maximum punishment is respectively three years and two years. As such, the impugned order is barred by section 468 of Cr.P.C..

¶9

On perusal of the complaint petition which is Annexure-1 to this application, it appears that the occurrence is said to be of lastly on 1.4.2007. It also appears that the complaint case was filed by O.P. No.2 on 5.9.2008 in which impugned order on enquiry under section 202 of Cr.P.C. has been passed on 5.6.2010 summoning the accused petitioners finding prima facie case for the offences under sections 418 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶10

In the case of Japani Sahoo Versus Chandra Sekhar Mohanty reported in (2007) 7 SSC the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for the purpose of computing the period of

¶11

Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.27758 of 2010 (3) dt.05-12-2012

¶12

limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a court. We, therefore, overrule all decisions in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings.

¶13

From the application it appears that the complaint case has been filed by the O.P.No.2 within three years of the occurrence. As such, I do not find any force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, this application is dismissed.

¶15

AnilKrSinha/-

¶16

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J)

Niraj Kumar Sinha and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niraj Kumar Sinha and Anr. v. State of Bihar and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jay Ram Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Vindhyachal Sharma @ Bindhyachal Sharma Vs the State of Bihar

Vijay Kumar Sinha @ Vijay Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Bihar

Madhur Kumar Verma Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Raj Kishore Kuar and Ors. Vs State of Bihar and Anr.

Ravi Shankar Jha Vs State of Bihar