Criminal Miscellaneous No.28650 OF 1998 ---- In the matter of an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973. ---- BIJAY NARAIN SHARMA SON OF SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF NUTAN NAGAR, POLICE STATION CIVIL LINE, DISTRICT- GAYA. ... ... PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OFBIHAR 2. ASSISTANT ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, TOWN ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUB-DIVISION NO.2, GAYA. ... ... OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Lal,Adv. For the State : Mr. Pramod Kumar Pandey,A.P.P. ---- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ---- Rakesh Kumar,J. The sole petitioner, while invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, has prayed for quashing of the order dated 13.8.1998 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Civil Line P.S. Case No.216 of 1993 whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance for the offence under Sections 39/44 of the Indian Electricity Act and 379 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of entire criminal proceeding in respect of Civil Line P.S. Case No.216 of 1993. 2. Allegation as per F.I.R. is that on - 2 - 22nd September, 1993, a raiding party was constituted by the Electricity Board official, which consisted one Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Gaya. The team raided different residential houses in a colony, namely, Nutan Colony, Gaya. The raiding party found that 13 accused persons were using electricity by committing an offence of theft of electricity. After conducting the raid, seizure list was prepared and in the seizure list, petitioner’s name finds place at Sl.No.10. After registering the case, the police investigated the same and thereafter charge sheet was submitted. After submission of charge sheet, learned Magistrate, by the impugned order, has taken cognizance of the offence as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel Shri Abhijeet Kumar Lal appearing on behalf of the petitioner, while challenging the order of cognizance as well as initiation of entire proceedings, submits that in this case, F.I.R. was lodged in the month of September, 1993 and after long delay, charge sheet was submitted on 30.6.1998. He submits that order of cognizance is barred under the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He - 3 - submits that for the offences alleged maximum punishment is imprisonment for three years and as such in view of Section 468(2(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (referred as Cr.P.C.) after lapse of three years from the date of occurrence, the learned Magistrate was not authorized to take cognizance for the offences. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further referred to a judgment of this Court reported in 1999(1) PLJR 685 (Dr. Kalpnath Singh Vs. State of Bihar & others). Learned counsel submits that one of the accused of the present case, whose name finds place at Sl.No.13 of the seizure list, aggrieved with the order of cognizance, had approached this Court. The case of Shyam Narayan Sharma and another, whose name finds place at Sl.No.13 of the seizure list in the present case, was heard along with the case of Dr. Kalpnath Singh and this Court by its order dated 11.2.1999 quashed the order of cognizance and proceeding in respect of co-accused Shyam Narayan Sharma. Learned counsel submits that the case of petitioner cannot be distinguished from the case of Shyam Narayan Sharma and as such he prays that the petitioner may be granted same relief. - 4 - PATNA HIGH COURT Dated 1.4.2010 N.A.F.R./N.H. 5. Without going into the merit of the case, I am of the view that since case of co- accused, having similar allegation, has already been allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.2.1999 passed in Cr. Misc. No.24561 of 1998, it would not be appropriate to direct the petitioner to participate in the proceeding arising out of Civil Line P.S. Case No.216 of 1993. Accordingly, for the ends of justice, it is necessary to quash the order of cognizance dated 13.8.1998 in respect of petitioner. 6. Accordingly, petition stands allowed. The order of cognizance as well as entire proceeding in respect of petitioner is hereby set aside. ( Rakesh Kumar,J.)