Patna High Court - OrdersSuresh Roy @ Sailesh Roy & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 3 September, 2015Author:Ashwani Kumar SinghBench:Ashwani Kumar SinghIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   Criminal Miscellaneous No.1394 of 2015
                         Arising Out of PS.Case No. -138 Year- 2009 Thana -BIHRA District- SAHARSA
                 ======================================================
                  1. Suresh Roy @ Sailesh Roy son of Late Jawahar Roy
                  2. Nunu roy @ Rakes Roy, son of Late Jawahar Roy
                  3. Rupesh Roy, son of Late Jawahar Roy
                     All resident of village-Kataiya, P.S.-Bihra, District-Saharsa.
                  4. Ranjeet Yadav, son of Late Bhupendra Yadav, resident of village-
                     Khajuri, Op.P.-Baijnathpur, District-Saharsa.
                  5. Sushil Roy, son of Late Khalari Roy, resident of village-Kataiya, P.S.-
                     Bihra, District-Saharsa.
                  6. Chandrakant Jha @ Tipu Jha, son of Madan Jha, resident of Gangjala,
                     P.S. + District-Saharsa.
                                                                           .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                    Versus
                 1. State of Bihar
                 2. Manoj Kumar Yadav, son of Laxmi Narain Yadav, resident of village-
                     Kataiya, P.O.-Sattar Katiya, P.S.-Bihra, District-Saharsa.
                                                                      .... .... Opposite Party/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s         : Mr. Shiva Shankar Sharma, Advocate
                 For the Opposite Party/s     : Dr. Mayanand Jha(App)
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR
                            SINGH
                                               ORAL ORDER


2   03-09-2015In the present application, filed underSection 482of the

                 Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners seek quashing of the

                 order dated 21.12.2012/17.7.2014 passed in Bihra P.S. Case No.

                 138 of 2009 by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Saharsa,

                 whereby he has condoned the limitation in exercise of power

                 conferred underSection 473of the Code of Criminal Procedure

                 and taken cognizance of the offence punishable underSections

                 147,149,323and504of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners were made accused in Bihra P.S. Case2   Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1394 of 2015 (2) dt.03-09-20152/3no. 138 of 2009 registered underSections 147,148,149,323and307of the Indian Penal Code andSection 27of the Arms Act.

             After completion of the investigation the police submitted

             chargesheet no. 3/2012 dated 12.12.2012 against the petitioners

             for the offence underSections 147,149,323and504of the Indian

             Penal Code before the learned Magistrate, who took cognizance of

             the offences on 17.7.2014.It is contended that the learned Magistrate while taking

             cognizance has waived the limitation in a casual manner without

             assigning any reason. It is further pointed out that the offences

             under which cognizance has been taken are exclusively triable by

             Gram Kachhari and it was duty of the Magistrate to cancel the

             jurisdiction of the Gram Kachhari first and then to proceed with

             the case.Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer

             made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He has submitted

             that apparently the chargesheet was filed before the Court within

             three years and since then the matter remained pending before the

             Magistrate concerned, who took cognizance of the offences on

             17.7.2014 after condoning the delay for taking of the cognizance.

             He has further contended that the contention of the learned

             counsel for the petitioners that the jurisdiction of the Gram3         Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.1394 of 2015 (2) dt.03-09-20153/3Kachhari ought to have been cancelled first does not hold good, in

                   view of the fact that by a composit order the learned Magistrate

                   had cancelled the jurisdiction of the Gram Kachhari and taken

                   cognizance of the offences.I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

                   perused the record. I find substance in the argument advanced by

                   the learned counsel for the State. The investigation of the case

                   was completed and chargesheet was filed before the court on

                   12.12.2012 itself. For one reason or another, the record was not

                   put up before the learned Magistrate concerned till 17.7.2014, the

                   date on which he took up the matter, cancelled the jurisdiction of

                   the Gram Kachhari and proceeded with the case after taking

                   cognizance of the offences and issued summons against the

                   petitioners.The application being devoid of any merit is dismissed.(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)



sudip/-U     T