Advocates:
['ASHIM KR SAHANI', '', 'AJIT KUMAR', 'APP']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr.M.P. No. 2875 of 2013

…

Arvind Kumar Singh @ Arvind Kumar, Son of Late

Bhagwati Prasad Singh, resident of Quarter No. M/9 (Old),

Housing Colony, Adityapur, P.O. & P.S. - Adityapur, District

– Seraikella - Kharsawan.

… Petitioner

-V e r s u s-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Shri Kanhaiya Prasad Singh, Inspector of Police, Sakchi

Police Station, Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum.

... Opposite Parties.

…

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR.

…

For the Petitioner

: - Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate

For the State

: - Mr. H.K. Shikarwar, A.P.P.

…

03/06.01.2015

This application has been filed for quashing the order

dated 18.05.2013 passed in G.R. No. 927 of 2009 (arising

out of Sakchi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2009) by Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby and whereunder he took

cognizance against the petitioner under Section 171 (F) of

the I.P.C. and Section 132 of Representation of Peoples Act,

1951.

It appears that the occurrence took place on

17.04.2009 and on that day itself, F.I.R. instituted vide

Sakchi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2009 dated 17.04.2009 and

police took up investigation. After completing the

investigation, police submitted charge sheet on 28.08.2012,

then the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance

of the offences vide his order dated 18.05.2013, which is

impugned in this case.

It is submitted by Sri. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for

the petitioner that the punishment under Section 171 (F) of

the I.P.C. is for one year, whereas the punishment under

Section 132 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 is

for three months. Thus, it is incumbent for the learned court

below to take cognizance within one year from the date of

institution of case. Since, in this case, cognizance taken

after the lapse of four years from the date of occurrence or

-2-

from the date of institution of F.I.R., therefore, the order of

cognizance cannot be sustained.

Sri H.K. Shikarwar, learned Additional P.P., has not

disputed the aforesaid factual position.

Having heard the submission, I have gone through the

record of the case. Admittedly, the occurrence took place on

17.04.2009. It also appears that on that day itself F.I.R.

instituted and police took up investigation. Police submitted

charge sheet on 28.08.2012 and then the cognizance was

taken by the learned court below on 18.05.2013 i.e. after

more than four years.

As per Section 468 (2)(b) of the Cr.P.C. - if for any

offence, the maximum punishment is one year then it is

incumbent for the court to take cognizance within one year

from the date of occurrence. As in this case, cognizance

taken after four years from the date of occurrence and / or

institution of F.I.R., therefore, I find that the order of

cognizance is bad in law because the court while taking the

cognizance has not condoned the delay as required under

Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the

case, I allow this application and quash the order dated

18.05.2013 passed in G.R. No. 927 of 2009 (arising out of

Sakchi P.S. Case No. 74 of 2009) by learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Jamshedpur.

( Prashant Kumar, J.)

sunil/