IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CR. WJC No.386 of 1998 MD.SHAH ALAM Versus STATE OF BIHAR ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr.Vikram Deo Singh, Advocate Mr.Prabhakar Jha, Advocate For the State : A.C. to G.A. 11 13.8.2010 The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 29.8.1996 passed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, West Muzaffarpur in T.R.No.278 of 1997, contained in Annexure-2, as well as quashing the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Revision No.195/96 dated 5.10.1996, contained in Annexure-3. The prosecution case in short is that the petitioner Md.Shah Alam filed a Complaint case bearing Complaint Case No.600/94 against one Md.Mohsim and others which was referred to the police under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for institution of the regular case giving rise to Maniyari P.S. Case No.92 of 1995. In May, 1995 the police submitted final form in favour of the accused and recommended for prosecution against the petitioner-complainant under sections 182, 211 of the Penal Code. Thereafter, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of offence under sections 182, 211 of the Penal Code on the basis of the said requisition made by the police. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the learned Magistrate taking cognizance 2 under section 211 of the Penal Code is barred under section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Cr.P.C. He submits that cognizance under section 182 of the Penal Code is also barred under section 468 Cr.P.C. as the same has been taken beyond the period of one year from the date of requisition. Learned counsel in support of contention has relied upon decisions in the case of Ram Surat Sharma Vs State of Bihar & Ors, reported in 1988 Est.Cr.L. 677(Pat) and in the case of Nand Kishore Singh Vs State of Bihar, reported in 2009(3) P.L.J.R. 53. It would appear from the aforesaid case as well as provisions contained in section 195(1)(b)(i) Cr.P.C. that no cognizance of offence under section 211 of the Penal Code could be taken except by way of institution of a fresh complaint. In the instant case the learned Magistrate without making fresh complaint has taken cognizance under section 211 of the Penal Code on the basis of the requisition filed by the police which is not permissible in law. In this view of the matter, the cognizance taken under section 211 of the Penal Code is bad in law. So far as cognizance under section 182 of the Penal Code is concerned, learned counsel has rightly submitted that the same is barred by limitation under section 468 Cr.P.C. The punishment under section 182 of the Penal Code is for six months and as such cognizance ought to have been taken within a period of one year as per section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. In view of the aforesaid provisions, the cognizance under section 182 of 3 KHAN the Penal Code is also bad, being barred by limitation. In the result this application is allowed and the order dated 29.8.1996 passed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, West Muzaffarpur in T.R.No.278 of 1997, as well as the order dated 5.10.1996 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Criminal Revision No.195/96 are quashed. (S.P.Singh,J)