IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.45934 of 2007 RAMANAND BHAGAT, SON OF LATE MATHURA BHAGAT, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PACHUAN, P.S. EKMA, DISTRICT- SARAN………………………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. P.P. SHARMA, SON OF NOT KNOWN, S.D.O. CHAPRA, RESIDENT OF CHAPRA, P.S. CHAPRA TOWN, DISTRICT- SARAN. …………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Md. Ziyauddin, Advocate. For the State : Mr. R.B.S. Pahipuri, A.P.P. ------------ 2. 16.1.2009. The petitioner herein who was the second party in a proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. being Case No.M-497 of 2006 before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Chapra, is aggrieved by order dated 16.6.2007 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran at Chapra in Complaint Case No.94 of 2007, whereby he has taken cognizance under Section 188 I.P.C. in continuation of case No.M-497 of 2006. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 16.6.2007 on two grounds. Firstly, he has submitted that once the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. had been dropped by order dated 2.6.2006 holding that Sarita Kumari, the first party, has already filed a Partition Suit No.334 of 1999 which is pending since 1999 it would not be proper to pass any orders and accordingly dropped the proceeding, he could not then have recommended for proceeding under Section 188 I.P.C. since there was - 2 - no proceeding pending against him. Secondly it was submitted that the date of occurrence of alleged violation of the order of the court of the Sub Divisional Magistrate is said to be 9.4.2006 and the proceeding was dropped thereafter on 2.6.2006 and the cognizance was taken on 16.6.2007, i.e., after one year and two months, notwithstanding the bar of limitation provided by Section 468 Cr.P.C. The question of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is no more res integra in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Ram Kripal Prasad Vs. State of Bihar(1985 PLJR 271) where their Lordships of the Full Court having noticed and relied upon several decision categorically observed 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 if such a plea is raised it ought to be adjudicated upon as a preliminary issue and further that 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. In view of the categoric observations of their Lordships of the Full Bench, I can do no better than to direct the petitioner to move the trial court and raise the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue which the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate shall decide as a preliminary issue in accordance with law. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the proceeding under Section 144 Cr.P.C. was dropped by order dated - 3 - 2.6.2006. Since the proceeding has already been dropped, it is for consideration whether the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate was legally justified in filing the complaint for violation of Section 188 I.P.C. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate is directed to consider this aspect of the matter also and decide whether the instant complaint petition by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate in the facts and the circumstances of the case was warranted. In the event the filing of the instant complaint was not maintainable being unwarranted and beyond the period of limitation, the learned court below will pass orders in accordance with law. With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of. P.S. (Abhijit Sinha,J)