IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.24258 of 2007 BIJAY KUMAR BHAGAT @ BIJAY KUMAR, S/O LATE RAMJEE PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-RANIBAG, P.S. BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA……………………………………………PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. SHYAM PRASAD JAISWAL, SON OF LATE VIDYA PRASAD JAISWAL. 3. BINOD KUMAR JAISWAL, SON OF LATE VIDYA PRASAD JAISWAL. 4. PAWAN KUMAR JAISWAL, SON OF LATE VIDYA PRASAD JAISWAL. ALL ARE RESIDENT OF SIMRI BAKHTIARPUR, P.S. SIMRI BAKHTIARPUR, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. ……………………………………………………..OPPOSITE PARTIES. ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Harendra Tiwari, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Jharkhandi Upadhyay, A.P.P. For O.P. No.2 : Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh, Advocate. ----------- O R D E R The petitioner who is the informant of Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No.78 of 2001 is aggrieved by order dated 17.1.2007 passed by Sri Dilip Kumar Jha, learned Presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Saharsa, by which he has dismissed the Criminal Revision No.261 of 2003 preferred against the order dated 26.4.2003, whereby the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance, holding it to be time barred. It appears that the complainant/informant, the petitioner herein, being a vendor of mobile kerosene oil, filed the Complaint Case No.266 of 2001 inter alia alleging therein that at about 3 P.M. on 17.4.2001, he requested O.P. No.2 , a whole sale - 2 - dealer of kerosene oil to deliver kerosene oil to him which was denied by stating that till such time that the case against him was not withdrawn by the complainant this situation would continue and when the complainant refused to withdraw the case, O.P. No.2 allegedly caught hold of his collar and remaining O.Ps. assaulted the informant with fists and slaps and forcibly obtained his left thumb impression on some blank sheets of paper stating that if he did not withdraw the case, the paper with the thumb impression would be used against him. It was also alleged that O.P. No.3 snatched a sum of Rs.1705/- from the pocket of the complainant. It appears that the said complaint was transmitted to the concerned police station under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and on the basis thereof Bakhtiarpur P.S. Case No.78 of 2001 came to be registered under Sections 341, 323, 379/34 I.P.C. It further appears that the police submitted a final report as the case being false and the Investigating Officer recommended for prosecution of the informant under Sections 182 and 211 I.P.C. The petitioner filed a protest-cum complaint petition before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 31.10.2001 which was numbered as Complaint Case No.554(C) of 2002 and after recording the statement of the complainant on S.A. and examining his witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance under Sections 323, 341 I.P.C. on 26.4.2003 but did not take cognizance under Sections 379 and 384 I.P.C. although - 3 - according to the complainant these offences were also made out. It further appears that against the order dated 26.4.2003 the petitioner filed Criminal Revision No.261 of 2003 which was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that it was time barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. It appears that the opposite parties had also filed Criminal Revision No.211 of 2003 against the order dated 26.4.2003 and Sri Dilip Kumar Jha, the learned presiding Judge, Fast Track Court No.3, Saharsa, having heard both the Criminal Revisions together passed the impugned order. It is apparent that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 17.4.2001 and cognizance was taken on 26.4.2003 which led the Revisional Court to hold that the cognizance order was barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. It is worth noting that no petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. was filed by the petitioner for extension of period of limitation nor was the matter considered by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance. It is well established that generally a second revision or second revision in the garb of a quashing application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is barred unless the finding of the court below is perverse, unwarranted or bad. I have perused the impugned order of the Revisional Court disposing of Criminal Revision No.211 of 2003 and 261 of 2003 by the common order and find no apparent illegality or impropriety so as to make out a case for exercise of inherent - 4 - powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent abuse of the process of the Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. (Abhijit Sinha, J) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated: The 16th of December, 2008. Pradeep Srivastava/A.F.R.