IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24631 of 2007 1. CHHOTU MISTRY 2. Sheo Kumar Mistry 3. Gopal Mistry 4. Kapil Mistry All sons of late Jagdish Mistry resident of Mohalla- Koeribari, P.S.- Civil Lines Town Gaya, District- Gaya -----------------Petitioners Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Vishnu Singh, S/o Late Sheo Nandan Singh of Mohalla- Nadraganj, P.S. Civil Lines Town at Gaya at present Mohalla- Pind Bechi, Ander Gaya, P.S.- Civil Lines Town Gaya, District- Gaya ----------------------Opposite Parties. ----------- 5. 9.7.2009 The four petitioners who are brothers are the tenant of the complainant. From the compliant petition itself, it appears that there was a dispute relating to eviction of the petitioners from a shop. It is alleged that time and again opposite party, complainant had filed application before the I.O. to start proceeding under Sections 107 and 116(2) against the petitioners but the officer incharge of the Police Station refrained from taking any action. It is also alleged that the ASI encouraged the petitioners to enable them to take advantage by increasing the area of the shop. Initially the case was filed under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code. However, after examining the witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the Court has taken cognizance under Section 448 of the Indian Penal Code. The order of cognizance was passed on 3.1.2007 for an occurrence which took place between 12.12.2001 to 4.6.2002. This Court finds that there was bona fide civil dispute between the parties, although the counsel for the petitioner now submits that the petitioners - 2 - have vacated the shop. The opposite party no. 2 despite notice has not appeared in this case perhaps because he is no longer interested in the case as it is submitted that opposite party has sold the land to a 3rd party. Apart from the submission made aforesaid, learned counsel submits that the cognizance under Section 448 I.P.C. is barred after a period of six years under Section 468(2) sub Clause B of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein it is envisaged that period of limitation for taking cognizance for an offence is one year, in case the offence is punishable by a sentence of one year. The punishment for house trespass under Section 448 is one year and it is therefore submitted that the cognizance should be quashed. In view of the provisions under Section 468(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court finds that the Court below ought not to have taken cognizance of the offence under Section 448 I.P.C. I accordingly quashed the order dated 3.1.2007 passed in Complaint Case No. C751/02 Tr. No. 282/07. This application is allowed. P. Kumar (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)