1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 546/2010 Babu lal Morwal vs. State of Rajasthan Date of Order: 31.03.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH BHAGWATI Mr. J.P. Goyal, for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Punia, Public Prosecutor for the State. ----- By way of this criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner Babu lal Morwal has prayed to quash and set aside the order of taking cognizance dated 13th June, 2008 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu as also the order dated 24th November, 2009 rendered by Additional Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu, who confirmed the order of Chief Judicial Magistrate in its revisional jurisdiction. 2. A very short question emerging for consideration in the instant petition is that, as to on which date the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu shall be deemed to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC in the instant case? 3. Having considered the submissions made at the bar and carefully perused the relevant material on record, it is noticed that the occurrence of this case took place on 13th 2 September, 2001. The police, having registered the case, commenced investigation and after completion of investigation, submitted police report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. on 26th February, 2002 in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu against the accused persons namely Babulal, Shiv Prasad and Malluram in the offence under Section 304-A of IPC. Order dated 13th June, 2008 reveals that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate having heard both the parties, took cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC and ordered to summon the accused persons accordingly. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has canvassed that the offence under Section 304-A of IPC was punishable with two years imprisonment and thus, the court could take the cognizance of the offence within a period of three years. If the cognizance was taken after three years, it was barred by law under Sub- section (2) of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. 5. It is true that the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jhunjhunu is found to have passed the order of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC on 13th June, 2008 but at the same time, it is also true that when the police, after completion of investigation submitted the charge-sheet in the court on 26th February, 2002, on that very day, the concerned 3 presiding officer ordered to register the case in accordance with the provisions of law. 6. Rule 25 of General Rules (Criminal), 1980 envisages the assignment of a serial number to each case, which is filed in the court. It further envisages that as soon as the cognizance of an offence is taken by the Magistrate, he shall assign serial number to that case. Upon institution of a case, the order sheet in the prescribed form shall be opened by the court. 7. It is relevant to record that on 16th February, 2002, when the charge-sheet was filed in the court, the same was ordered to be instituted and it was numbered by the court as 334/2002. 8. It has been consistently held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the catena of judgments that the Magistrate takes the cognizance of the offence, when he applies his mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Magistrate having jurisdiction and having gone through the relevant papers pertaining to the charge-sheet of the instant case, ordered to register the case and accordingly it was numbered as 334/2002. Thus, the Magistrate in fact, had taken the cognizance of the offence under Section 304-A of IPC on that very day, when the charge-sheet was filed in the court and the same was assigned the serial number. The order dated 4 13th June, 2008 in view of the above facts and circumstances was in fact uncalled. However, even if the Magistrate had in routine, after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties, ordered to take cognizance in the offence under Section 304-A of IPC on 13th June, 2008, it does not mean that the cognizance was barred by limitation and trial could not proceed. 9. In view of above, I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the instant criminal misc. petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. being bereft of any merit stands dismissed. (MAHESH BHAGWATI), J. Mak/- 15