Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.12563 of 2011 ====================================================== Anish Kumar son of Ashok Pd. Singh, resident of village-Kapsona, P.S.- Sahkuknd, District-Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Kajal daughter of Ranjeet Pd. Singh resident of P.H.C., Sabour P.S.- Sabour, District-Bhagalpur .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kr. Singh, Advocate Mr. P.P.N. Sahi Mr. Birendra Kr. Tiwary, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Swaphil Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State Mr. Mangal Pandit, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 3 23-04-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the informant and learned counsel for the State. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 3.3.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 746/2009 by which the court below has taken cognizance under [STATUTE] and 3 /4 of the D.P.Act. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order of cognizance on the ground that as per the admitted facts as para-5, complaint petition the cause of action has come to end on 10.2.2007, as the prosecutrix was taken away by her father to her parental house. It appears from the record that the complaint case was Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12563 of 2011 (3) dt.23-04-2012 2 / 3 2 filed in the year 2009 vide Complaint Case No. 746/2009 which remained pending and ultimately the court below has taken cognizance on 3.3.2011. Before the cognizance by the court below, the prosecutrix had appeared before the Janta Darbar of the Hon’ble Chief Minister whereupon F.I.R. was also instituted vide Sabaur P.S. No. 21/2010 for offences under [STATUTE] and 3 /4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The counsel for the petitioner submits that order of cognizance has been taken after the period of limitation, as period for taking cognizance is three years. The counsel for the petitioner submits so much so that as there was a police case and a complaint case for the same offence, so both the cases should not proceed parallel and submits that as per section 210 of Cr. Procedure Code both the cases should be merged and tried together. In contra the counsel for the State submits that the offence [STATUTE] the Cr. Procedure Code is not applicable. However the complaint case was filed within a period of limitation though the cognizance has been taken after three years and taking of cognizance is act of the Court and for the action or inaction of the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.12563 of 2011 (3) dt.23-04-2012 3 / 3 3 Court, complainant should not suffer but he has agreed that there would not be any illegality in clubbing together both the cases. Having considered the rival submission of the parties, in view of judgment reported in 2007 (7) SCC 394 (Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty) as the complaint was filed within the period of limitation and for the act of the Court, complainant should not suffer. In this view of the matter, I do not any illegality in the order of cognizance. However the complaint case as well as the F.I.R. is for the same offence, and as such it will be for ends of justice, the petitioner will have a liberty to file an appropriate application before the court below and the court below in terms of provision of section 210 Cr. Procedure Code will pass appropriate order. With this observation, this petition is dismissed. Mahesh/- (Shivaji Pandey, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 504

Statute Text:
Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Insult intended to provoke breach of the peace. Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.