IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.51552 of 2008 Kamalesh Kumar Sinha S/O Late Kishore Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Amlatola, Madhubani, Police Station K.Hat, Dist- Purnea at present, Mohalla North Bhatta Zila School, P.S- K.Hat …………………………………………………Petitioner Versus State Of Bihar …………………………………………….Opposite Party 02 21.10.2011 The petitioner has approached this court under Section 482 Cr.P.C in inherent jurisdiction to quash the order dated 23.4.2000/28.4.2000 passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Purnea in K.Hat P.S.Case No. 194/99 G.R. No. 1393/ 99 taking cognizance of the offence under Section 309/34 of the Indian Penal code against three accused including the petitioner. 2 The sole submission, of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, is that the offence under Section 309 of I.P.C is punishable only up to one year or with fine or with both. As such, according to Section 468 Cr.P.C., period of limitation of taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 309 of I.P.C is only one year but the impugned order dated 28.6.2000 taking the cognizance of offence under Section 309/34 I.P.C has been passed after one year of the occurrence i.e.25.6.99. 3 It appears from the first information report as 2 (Annexure 1 to this application) that regarding the occurrence of 25.6.99, on the basis of the written report of the informant Mahadeo Ram, K Hat P.S.Case No.194/99 was instituted on the same day and after submission of charge sheet on investigation the learned C.J.M, Purnea, took the cognizance for the offence under Section 309/34 I.P.C on 28.6.2000. 4 In the case of Japani Shaoo versus Chandra Sekhar Mohanty ( A.I.R 2007 Supreme Court 2762 ), the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, regarding bar as to take cognizance of the offence under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing the Complaint or initiating the Criminal proceeding and not the date of taking the cognizance by the Magistrate or issuing the process by the court. As such the limitation period specified under Section 468 of the code of Criminal Procedure for taking cognizance of the offence is to be read with reference to lodging the F.I.R or Complaint petition and not the date when the cognizance is taken. In this case the F.I.R has been lodged on the same date of occurrence as such Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure will not be attracted. Accordingly this 3 application is dismissed. Namita ( Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)