Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.13680 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Anwar S/O Nasim @ Nasimuddin R/O Village - Gaiyari Ward No. 7, P.S. Araria, District - Araria .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. Jahir S/O Wasique R/O Village - Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District - Araria 3. Ashique S/O Ilyas R/O Village - Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District - Araria 4. Khalique S/O Salim R/O Village - Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District - Araria 5. Tanweer S/O Hefaz R/O Village - Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District - Araria 6. Shamimuddin S/O Mainuddin R/O Village - Gaiyari, P.S. Araria, District - Araria .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 3 04-05-2012 Heard Mr. Girish Prasad Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2011 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Araria in Cr.Rev.No.80 of 2008/403 of 2008 whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to allow the revision preferred by the accused and set aside the order taking cognizance on 14.12.2001 on the grounds of the same being hit by the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The F.I.R. in question giving rise to Araria P.S. Case No. 194 of 2000 was instituted alleging offences punishable under [STATUTE] for an occurrence taking place on 14.05.2000. The Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.13680 of 2012 (3) dt.04-05-2012 2 / 2 2 chargesheet being submitted, the learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence punishable under [STATUTE] on 14.12.2001. A petition was filed on behalf of the defence under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure drawing the attention of the Judicial Magistrate that the order taking cognizance was barred under the limitation prescribed under Section 468. The petition was rejected by the learned Magistrate. A revision was preferred and the learned Sessions Judge relying upon the judicial pronouncements of this Court as well as the Supreme Court and taking into consideration the fact that the order taking cognizance was passed after lapse of 1 year and 7 months from the date of alleged offence, was pleased to allow the revision application holding the cognizance order to be barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I do not find any infirmity with the order passed by the Revisional Court. The application is dismissed. Bibhash/- (Jyoti Saran, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 342

Statute Text:
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. Wrongfully confining any person. Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.