CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.407 OF 2001 ------ In the matter of an application under section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure. ------- AJAY KUMAR son of late Sri Deonarayan Prasad resident of Mohalla-Gosaibagh, Gaya, Dist.-Gaya ……. …….Petitioner Versus STATE OF BIHAR …… …..Opp.Party ------- For the petitioner : Dr.Arun Kumar-2 For the State: Mrs. Indu Bala 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 an order dated 23.10.2000/4.11.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Civil Line P.S. case No.260 of 1992. By the said order, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences under sections 49(2)(G), 49(3)(A) and 49(3)(D) of the Bihar Finance Act, 1981 and section 10 of the Central Sales Tax Act and directed to issue notice against the petitioner. 2. In this case learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his argument on the point of delay in filing of the first information report as well as passing of the order of cognizance after expiry of period of limitation. In the present case first information report was drawn on 27.10.1992 vide Gaya Civil Line P.S. Case No.260 of 1992, annexure-2 to the petition, which shows that period of occurrence was in between 1.1.1988 to 31.3.1989. After registering first information report, to the reasons 2 best known to the investigating officer, charge sheet was submitted on 30.6.2000 i.e. after about eight years from the date of registration of the first information report and, thereafter, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by its order dated 23.10.2000/4.11.2000 took cognizance of the offence. Even order of cognizance was passed after few months from the date of filing of the charge sheet by the police. Against the order of cognizance, the petitioner approached this court by filing the present petition which was admitted finally on 4.3.2002 and, while admitting the petition, it was directed that pending final hearing, interim order passed on 13.11.2001 shall remain operative and order of stay is still continuing. 3. Obviously, in the present case even first information report was lodged after the period of limitation as prescribed under section 468(2)(C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that for the offences alleged in the present case maximum punishment prescribes under the Act is three years imprisonment and, as such, period of limitation would be three years as prescribed under section 468(2)( C) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This section provides limitation of taking cognizance of the offence. However, in the present case, first information report itself was lodged after expiry of period of limitation and order of cognizance was passed after eleven years from the date of alleged occurrence. In view of the aforesaid fact, without going into the merit of the case, this court is of the opinion that no 3 Patna High Court The 11th August,2010 Md.S./NAFR purpose would be served in directing the petitioner to participate in the proceeding for the offences which had taken place about twenty one years ago, that too, in a case where first information report itself was lodged after the period of limitation for taking cognizance. The court is of the opinion that it is a fit case for exercising inherent jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the order of cognizance dated 23.10.200/4.11.2000 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gaya in Civil Line P.S. Case No.260 of 1992 is hereby set aside and the petition stands allowed. (Rakesh Kumar, J.)