IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.38910 of 2008 1) Dinanath Bhagat, son of Late Ram Prasad Bhagat, Village and PS Bhawanipur, District Purnea 2) Murli Mandal, son of Saryug Mandal, village Singhiyan, PS Bhawanipur, Dist. Purnea. 3) Dinesh Sharma, son of Laxman Sharma, 4) Bhola Mochi, son of Thakur Mochi, 5) Jay Jay Yadav, son of sondhi Yadav, 6) Suresh Yadav, son of Pachcho Yadav, 7) Arbind Yadav, son of Sondhi Yadav,all of village Siswa within Bhawanipur police station. 8) Prakash Mandal @ Jay Prakash Mandal, son of Soti Mandal, 9) Banarsi Mandal, son of Chhabbu Mandal, both of village Singhiyan within Bhawanipur police station. 10) Sikana Yadav @ Sikandar Yadav, son of Patwari Yadav, village Siswan, Police Station, Bhawanipur. 11) Chhatish Mandal, son of Shiv Mandal, village Singhiyan, 12) Chhattu Yadav, son of Yugal Yadav, 13) Janardan Yadav, son of Gajo Yadav, 14) Jai Kishun Yadav, son of Bachcho Yadav, 15) Upendra Sharma, son of Sindhu Sharma,all of village Siswa within Bhawanipur police station. 16) Ritu Sharma @ Ritlal Sharma, son of Hiya Sharma, 17) Phuleshwar Sharma, son of Ripu Sharma, 18) Polhari Sharma, son of Mitri Sharma, 19) Mukti Sharma, son of Amrit Sharma, 20) Baski Mandal, son of Phulchand Mandal, all of village Singhiyan, within Bhawanipur police station. 21) Jay Prakash Yadav, son of Late Nokhelal Yadav, 22) Chhedi Sharma, son of Moti Sharma, 23) Sudin Yadav, son of Soti Yadav, 24) Fekan Mochi @ Feku Mochi, son of Thakur Mochi, 25) Pirthavi Sharma, son of Shanichar Sharma, all of village Siswa, Police station Bhawanipur, District Purnea – Petitioners. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar, 2) Tapendra Mandal, son of Late Bhubaneshwari Pd. Mandal, village Brahmgyani, PS Bhawanipur, Dist. Purnea – Opp. Parties. 2 27.7.2011 HeardMrs. Sudha Kumari, counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. for the State. This application has been filed for quashing the order, dated 25.9.2007 passed in Bhawanipur PS Case No. 126/1991 by the C.J.M, Purnea by which cognizance has been taken for the offences under sections 144, 447, 426, 427 and 379 of the Penal 2 Code. There are thirty two accused persons in this case. The matter remained pending for investigation and thereafter charge sheet was submitted in this case. The court below took cognizance against some of the accused persons and dropped the case against some of the dead accused persons. Being aggrieved by this order of cognizance, the petitioners moved before the Additional Sessions Judge, FTC 7, Purnea. The court found that the order of cognizance was barred by section 468 Cr.P.C. and remanded the matter to the Magistrate for reconsideration. On reconsideration of the matter the court found that the petitioners were absconders in this case and as such charge sheet could not be submitted within time. The I.O. of the case was changed from time to time as a result of which there was delay and laches on behalf of the petitioners which led to the subsequent delay in passing the order of cognizance. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the court has not been able to explain the fifteen years’ delay in taking cognizance in this case. It may be counted from the date on which Annexure 2 i.e. the order, dated 28.3.2006 was issued. This court cannot understand as to how the court condoned fifteen years’ of delay. It would be understandable if there was delay of two or three years but to condone fifteen years’ delay is not appreciable. Having come to the findings that the delay has not been adequately explained by the Magistrate, the impugned order is quashed, subject to the fact that charges have not been framed in 3 this case and the matter is remanded back to the Magistrate at Purnea to take a fresh decision in this matter. This application is, thus, allowed. Counsel for the petitioners is directed to produce a copy of this order within one month before the court concerned failing which this application shall stand dismissed. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)