IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.5638 of 2008 OM PRAKASH RAJAK, Son of Late Panna Lal Rajak, posted at Civil Court, Mahajkhana, Patna, R/O Mohalla-Musallahpur, Kisan Cold Storage Lane, Mahendru, District- Patna..................................................................Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Digambar Nath Mathur, Son of Late Harish Chandra Mathur, R/O Village- Baikunthpur, Brahmanda, P.S. Ujiyarpur, District- Samastipur. ...............Opposite Parties. ----------- 3. 28.04.2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and opposite party no.2 as well as the State. In the present application the cognizance order dated 15.09.2007 has been challenged whereby the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur, has taken cognizance under Sections 290 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code in Ujiyarpur (Samastipur) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2001, G.R. No. 46 of 2001, Tr. No. 938 of 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for the occurrence of 21.11.1999 the complaint was filed on 22.11.1999 whereas the cognizance was taken in the matter on 15.09.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that under Section 290 of the 2 Indian Penal Code for the offence committing the public nuisance, only a fine of Rs. 200/- has been prescribed whereas under Section 504 of the Indian Penal Code the maximum punishment is of two years or fine or both which is for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace. Hence the cognizance is barred under the provisions of Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: “468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation- (2) The period of limitation shall be- (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.” Admittedly, from the complaint itself, it appears that for the occurrence of 21.11.1999 complaint was filed on 22.11.1999 whereas subsequently the same has been transferred under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and the First Information Report was registered on 26.01.2001 and the order of cognizance has been passed on 15.09.2007. Hence cognizance is not permissible under 3 Section 468 of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 has submitted that prima facie case has been found by the learned trial court hence the order of cognizance needs no interference. In view of the fact that the order of taking cognizance is bad under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., I do hereby quash the entire proceedings of Ujiyarpur (Samastipur) P.S. Case No. 15 of 2001, G.R. No. 46 of 2001, Tr. No. 938 of 2008 including order of cognizance dated 15.09.2007 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Dalsingsarai, Samastipur. The application is allowed. U.K. (Dinesh Kumar Singh,J)