IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.40616 of 2010 SHYAM NANDAN SINGH & ORS Versus STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 2. 5.1.2011. Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that the order of cognizance and summoning passed on 6.6.2008 by the learned S.D.J.M., Masauri in Punpun P.S.case No.30 of 2005 was completely hit by the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. It was submitted that the date of occurrence in respect of offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 448 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code was 22nd April, 2005 for which a report was immediately made to the police on the same date, i.e., 22.4.2005 as a result of which Punpun P.S.Case No.30 of 2005 was registered and investigated into. Final report was submitted on 24.6.2005 but differing with the opinion of the police, the Magistrate passed an order of summoning on 6.6.2008, i.e., more than three years of the date of occurrence which was clearly within the knowledge of the police as also the informant. It was contended that offence under Section 341 IPC was punishable with 2 imprisonment of one month or with a fine of Rs.500/-. Other offences except the offence under Section 504, were punishable with imprisonment of one year. The offence under Section 504 IPC was punishable with imprisonment of two years. It was contended that in the light of the provisions of Section 468(2)(c), the order of cognizance and summoning ought to have been passed within three years of the date of occurrence but it was passed outside the period of three years as prescribed by law. On examining the arguments and considering the order of cognizance, the court finds the same being hit by the mischief of Section 468(2)(c) as a result of which, the same cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed. The petition succeeds and the same is allowed. B.Kr. ( Dharnidhar Jha,J.)