Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.35371 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sharvan Thakur, son of Hibu Thakur 2. Ganesh Thakur, son of Hibu Thakur 3. Hibu Thakur, son of late Buchan Thakur 4. Jitani Devi, wife of Hibu Thakur All are residents of village-Mahrail, P.S.Andhra Thari, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Harsh Narayan Jha, son of Atinandan Jha, resident of village- Mahrail, P.S. Andhra Thari, District-Madhubani .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 02. 08-05-2012 Heard Narendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. There is no representation on behalf of the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2009 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani in Complaint Case No. 725 of 2008, whereby the learned Magistrate has been pleased to take cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] and transferred the case for trial before the Court of Shri S. Ranjan, Judicial Magistrate, 2nd Class, Jhanjharpur, District-Madhubani. The complainant has charged the petitioners of defaming him by instituting repeated cases and which has undermined his reputation thus constituting an offence punishable under Section Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35371 of 2010 (2) dt.08-05-2012 2 500 of the Indian Penal Code. The position has been contested by the petitioners herein to submit that a bare reading of the allegations set out in the complaint, it is manifest that the ingredients for constituting an offence of defamation as defined under [STATUTE] is not present in the complaint case and in which view, the order taking cognizance is not sustainable. It is further stated that the order taking cognizance is also hit by the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure inasmuch as the offence though allegedly stated to have been continuing from 14.12.1998 to 13.03.2008, the case was instituted on 06.08.2008 and the cognizance was taken on 03.07.2009, that is beyond the limitation period. A full Bench decision of this Court since reported in 1985 PLJR 271 (Ram Kripal Vs. State of Bihar) holds the view that the issue of limitation should be raised by the contesting party at the initial stage of the proceedings and the plea that the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation, cannot be directly raised before the High Court for quashing the proceedings on that ground. Admittedly, the petitioners have not raised this issue before the Court below. Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.35371 of 2010 (2) dt.08-05-2012 3 Considering the circumstances, the submissions of learned counsel and taking into consideration the full Bench judgment of this Court (supra), this application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all issues as raised in the present application including the issue that the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation prescribed under section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure at the appropriate stage of proceedings before the court below and which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law. With the observation aforesaid, this application is disposed of. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 499

Statute Text:
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code. None. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.