IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.15881 of 2007 HARE KRISHNA Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 6 30.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State. Vide order dated 4.11.2006 learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sitamarhi took cognizance against the petitioner under section 379 of the Indian Penal Code which arose out of Dumra P.S. Case No. 24 of 2003. One Janardan Prasad Yadav submitted a written statement on 11.2.2003 before the Officer-in-charge Dumra Police Station that during the course of Intermediate Examination being held in the first sitting at Sitamarhi Intermediate College the petitioner went away with the answer sheet and did not submit the same and therefore had committed theft of movable property and substantive offence under section 379 of the I.P.C. was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said information or FIR was alleged to be malicious one. There was some omission or commission on the part of the member conducting the examination but to cover up their mistake they decided to lodge the present case. The Court is not interested in nitty-gritty of the allegation or the reason behind lodging of the FIR but is willing to consider the alternative submission made at the bar that the allegations were made on 11.2.2003, cognizance was taken on - 2 - 4.11.2006 which is more than three years since the allegation was made and looking at the punishment under section 379 of the IPC the period of limitation had expired in the meanwhile and therefore the order taking cognizance is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on a decision reported in 2007 (1) PLJR 325 in the case of Daroga Singh & Ors. vrs. The State of Bihar & Anr. in this regard. The occurrence is of 11.2.2003 and the cognizance has been taken on 4.11.2006 which is obviously beyond the period of three years. There is nothing on record to indicate that while passing the order taking cognizance dated 4.11.2006 this aspect of the matter was considered by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Petitioner has made out a case for interference. The order dated 4.11.2006 passed in Dumra P.S. Case No. 24 of 2003 (G.R. 203 of 2003) stands quashed. This application is accordingly allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)