IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2614 of 2008 1. SUDHIR KANT PANDEY , SON OF SHRI MADAN PANDEY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PIPARA NAURANGIA, P.S.JOGA- PATTI, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN 2. SHIV KUMAR DWIVEDI SON OF SHRI ANJANI KUMAR DWIVEDI, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA-RAJDEORI, P.S. BETTIAH TOWN, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. -------------------- PETITIONERS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. AJAY KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF SHRI BAGESHWAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-AHWAR SHEKH, P.S. JAGDISHPUR, DISTRICT-WEST CHAMPARAN. --------------- OPP.PARTIES. ----------- 4 13-01-2009 Heard Mr.Sanjeev Kumar-I the learned counsel for the petitioner as also Mr.Jharkhandi Upadhaya, the learned A.P.P. for the State and Mr.Akhileshwar Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for Opp.Party no.2. The petitioners , who are not named in the F.I.R. of Sugauli P.S. Case No.55 of 2004 , have prayed for the quashing of the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Railway Judicial Magistrate, West Champaran at Bettiah in Complaint Case no.2085 of 2006, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 379/411 I.P.C. against the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that although the police had submitted final form in the police case,after the protest petition filed on 22.11.2004 proceeded as a complaint case and cognizance was taken. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that the - 2 - cognizance was taken beyond the period of limitation and as such, the prosecution of the petitioners apart from being unwarranted was an abuse of the process of the court. In this connection, it must be stated that the issue of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is no more res integra in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad Vrs. The State of Bihar (1985 PLJR, 271) wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held that the issue of limitation is a question which needs to be raised and determined at the earlier stage before the trial court since the question of limitation is a matter for consideration, computation and adjudication by it alone and when such a plea is raised, it ought to be adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue and was to be decided as a preliminary issue. The Full Bench has categorically held that the disputed issue of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. cannot be appropriately raised directly in the High Court for the quashing of the proceeding under Section 482 Cr.P.C. I am bound by the observations of their Lordships of the Full Bench and can do no better than to direct the petitioners to raise the issue of limitation before the trial court as a preliminary issue in the light of the observations of the Full Bench decision. With the aforesaid observation, this application is disposed of . ( Abhijit Sinha, J ) NKS/-