IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.628 of 2007 SATYENDRA NARAYAN SINGH PANKAJ Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 10 08.07.2008 The petitioner has challenged the order dated 4.2.2004 by which cognizance has been taken against the petitioner under Section 403 and 418 of the Indian Penal Code. The facts are that Smt. Minakshi Singh filed a complaint petition against the petitioner and others under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 in which she has made an allegation that the petitioner who was the Secretary of Shiv Nagar Sahkari Grih Nirman Samiti Ltd., Bahadurpur, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the Samiti) persuaded the complainant to purchase two kathas and ½ dhur of land appertaining to khata no. 328 S.P. No. 459 for a consideration of Rs. 60,038/-, a sale deed was executed on 21.12.1990 for the said land. It is also alleged that there was an agreement between the Secretary of the Samiti dated 29.11.1990 to purchase another piece of land. It is alleged that the land did not belong to the Samiti and the complainant fraudulently sold the said land to the petitioner and thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant for the purpose of making a wrongful gain for himself. The Chief Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance under Section 403 and 418 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on 4.2.2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance is barred by the provisions of Section 468(2)(c) which prescribes the period of limitation to taking of cognizance and Section 2 469(1)(a). It would be relevant to refer to the provisions of the Sections relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Section 468(a) reads “Power to taking of cognizance after lapse of period of limitation and Sub Clause 2 “The period of limitation shall be ------------ (a) -------------------- (b) -------------------- (c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with an imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Section 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads “Commencement of the period of limitation:- (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence,------------------- (a) On the date of the offence; or------------- The facts reveal that the date of the offence was 15.6.1990 and the cognizance was taken on 4.2.2004. The punishment prescribed for offences under Section 403 is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both and the offences under Section 418 are punishable by imprisonment for a period which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. On the facts of this case mentioned aforesaid it is clear that the petitioner would be entitled to be protection provided by Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the order of cognizance is thus barred by limitation and as such is quashed. Sanjay (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)