IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2766 of 2008 ABHYA DEVI, WIFE OF UMESH CHANDRA YADAV, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-HETANPUR, P.S. PATORI, DISTRICT-SAMASTIPUR. ………………………………………………………………..PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. RAMANAND PD. SINHA, SON OF LATE JANAK PD. SINHA, OF VILLAGE-BAJITPUR, P.S. BIDYAPATI NAGAR, DISTRICT- SAMASTIPUR. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shiv Shankar Sharma, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : None. -------------- 3. 14.1.2009. The petitioner, one of the F.I.R. named accused of Patori P.S. Case No.69 of 2006, has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 3.9.2007 passed therein by Sri S.K. Singh, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur, whereby he has taken cognizance against all the F.I.R. named accused under Sections 143, 447, 379, 427, 165 I.P.C. as also Sections 131(b), 135, 136(F) of the Representation of People Act and has directed for issuance of summons. It may be stated at the very outset that although the informant on duly being served with notice has put in an appearance by filing vakalatnama, yet at the time of hearing of this application, neither the informant, impleaded herein as O.P. No.2, nor his accredited counsel are present. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at around 11.30 A.M. on 15.5.2006 at Booth No.218 located at Mitanpur - 2 - Middle School during the Panchayat Elections of 2006. Assailing the impugned order taking cognizance, the primary grievance raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. In this connection it must be stated that the issue of limitation raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no more res integra in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ram Kripal Prasad Vs. The State of Bihar (1985 PLJR 271) wherein it was laid down in categoric terms 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 further held that the disputed issue of limitation 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 the Full Bench and can do no better than to direct the petitioner 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 above observations this application is disposed of. NKS/- (Abhijit Sinha,J)