Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13990 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Usman Mian S/O Majir Mian Resident Of Village- Ghnghaur, P.S.- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani 2. Muntajir Mian S/O Usman Mian Resident Of Village- Ghnghaur, P.S.- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Musteshwar Jha S/O Late Basudeo Jha Resident Of Village- Ghanghaur, P.S.- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 03. 09-05-2012 Heard Mr. Soban Asghar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Chandra Bhushan Prasad, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. This application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) has been filed for quashing the order dated 30.03.2011 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Criminal Revision No. 816 of 2010, whereby the learned Judge while allowing the revision petition filed on behalf of the petitioners, has been pleased to remit the matter back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate for passing afresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner has also questioned the consequential order dated 05.06.2011 whereby the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under [STATUTE] against the petitioner, after condoning the delay. A Section 144 proceedings under the Code of Criminal Procedure, had been initiated at the instance of the opposite party no. 2. The learned Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13990 of 2012 (3) dt.09-05-2012 2 Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Madhubani, upon consideration of the materials and the report received in that regard, confirmed the possession of the opposite party no. 2 over the land in question. A petition was subsequently filed by the opposite party no. 2 charging the petitioners of violating the order passed in Section 144 proceedings and of intruding over the land in question by force by placement of logs and bricks over the disputed area. A petition to this effect was filed by the opposite party no. 2 before the local police station for taking appropriate action under [STATUTE] against the petitioners on 06.03.2009 and pursuant whereto a report was submitted confirming the allegations. In the aforesaid circumstances a complaint was filed by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Sadar Madhubani giving rise to G.O. Case No. 92 of 2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani requesting for taking appropriate actions against the petitioners for violating the order passed in Section 144 proceedings. By order dated 05.07.2010, the Chief Judicial Magistrate upon considering the allegation set out in G.O. Case No. 92 of 2010, took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 188 against the petitioners and issued processes. The petitioners questioned the order taking cognizance by filing a revision giving rise to Criminal Revision No. 816 of 2010 and the learned Sessions Judge, Madhubani by order dated 30.03.2011 while appreciating the contention of the petitioners that the cognizance order was hit by the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code and that despite a prayer for condonation of delay having been made in the complaint, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate had proceeded to take cognizance without condoning the delay, by the order dated 30.03.2011 while allowing the revision application, was pleased to remit the Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13990 of 2012 (3) dt.09-05-2012 3 matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani for passing afresh order in accordance with law. Following the order passed by the Revisional court the Chief Judicial Magistrate by order passed on 05.06.2011 after condoning the delay in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 473 of the Code, and in the light of the prayer made in the complaint placed at Annexure-1, has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . The report of the local police station was produced by the learned counsel during the course of the proceedings although it has not been appended with the present proceedings and a perusal whereof manifests that upon local inspection, the police officer concerned did find these petitioners of having intruded over the land in question and of erecting poles etc. thereon. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order is not sustainable for the reason that no reasons has been assigned for condonation of delay as required under Section 473 of the Code. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the following decisions: (1) A.I.R. 2000 SC 297; (2) (1997) 4 Supreme 217. It is further submitted that the petitioner no. 2 was not a party to the Section 144 proceedings, hence he could not have been arrayed as accused in the proceedings conducted for violation of the order passed under Section 144 of the Code. The contentions of the petitioners do not merit consideration for the reason that the explanation given for condonation of delay has been mentioned in the complaint petition itself and upon consideration whereof the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate has been pleased to condone the same in exercise of powers vested in him under Section 473 of the Code. Thus there Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13990 of 2012 (3) dt.09-05-2012 4 is no infirmity in the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhubani in condoning the delay in taking cognizance. Learned counsel has also relied upon an unreported Division Bench decision of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. No. 1494 of 1976 (Vasudeo Agrawal and Ors. Vs. State) dated 21.02.1978. In the said case as the cognizance had been taken beyond the period of limitation, hence the same was quashed

Applicable IPC Section: 188

Statute Text:
Section 188 of the Indian Penal Code. Disobedience to an order lawfully promulgated by a public servant, If such disobedience causes obstruction, annoyance or injury to persons lawfully employed. Whoever, knowing that, by an order promulgated by a public servant lawfully empowered to promulgate such order, he is directed to abstain from a certain act, or to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management disobeys such direction, shall, if such disobedience causes or tends to cause obstruction, annoyance or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any persons lawfully employed, be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both; and if such disobedience causes or tends to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or tends to cause a riot or affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.