Ramesh Chandra Sinha & Ors vs State Of Bihar & Ors

legality, validity and correctness of the impugned order. The

appellants filed a petition before the High Court for quashing

the entire criminal proceedings including the order dated

4.2.2000 by which the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patna, had taken

cognizance for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 504/34 and

120-B of the Indian Penal Code on a complaint filed by the

respondent no. 2.

The appellant no. 1 was the Chairman of the Bihar State

Pollution Control Board, Patna. Prior to joining the Board, he

served as Professor in the Department of Geology, Patna

University and he had teaching experience of 26 yeas. The

respondent no. 2 was an employee of the Pollution Control Board.

On account of certain irregularities and misconduct, he was

dismissed from service after holding enquiry. He challenged the

order of dismissal before the High Court in a writ petition. He

lodged the F.I.R. at Harijan Police Station (Patna Sadar)

alleging that right from the day he filed the writ petition, he

was pressurized by the officials of the Pollution Control Board

to withdraw the said writ petition. He complained that on

30.11.1992, the appellant no. 1 had abused and scolded him.

Subsequently on 28.10.1993, he was beaten by the other

appellants.

The appellants earlier filed a Criminal Misc. No. 16672 of

1994 in the High Court for quashing the criminal proceedings. On

11.11.1994, the High Court passed the following order:-

"Pending admission of the application further

proceedings in the court below shall remain

stayed and no coercive action shall be taken

against the petitioners."

The said order was modified on 6.2.1995 as under:-

"Pending disposal of this application Police

Investigation shall continue but no coercive

action shall be taken by the police against the

petitioners."

The said Criminal Misc. case was finally disposed of on

5.10.1999.

In the impugned order, it is stated thus:-

"While disposing Cr. Misc. Case No. 16672 of

1994 a Bench of this Court had observed that

although on the face of the record charge-

sheet has been submitted after more than three

years and no cognizance has been taken till the

date of final order passed in that Cr. Misc.

Case more than three years had elapsed and, as

such, it was barred by limitation. But the

matter was sent back to the court below for

consideration whether cognizance is barred or

not."

The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate (for short 'the CJM')

by the order dated 4.2.2000 held that considering the date of

occurrence being 24.9.1994 and the charge-sheet having been

submitted in the year 1998 after a period of three years, bar of

limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (for

short `the Code') was attracted but on the petition filed by the

respondent no. 2 on 6.1.2000, the learned magistrate condoned the

delay exercising power under Section 473 of the Code stating that

from 11.11.1994 till 5.10.1999 further proceedings in the court

of the learned magistrate should be construed as stayed in view

of the orders passed in Criminal Misc. No. 16672 of 1994. As

already noticed above, the said order dated 4.2.2000 passed by

the learned CJM was under challenge in the impugned order.

Before the High Court, the only point that was urged on behalf of

the appellants for quashing the entire criminal proceedings was

that the charge-sheet having been filed after a period of three

years, taking of cognizance was barred under Section 468(2) of

the Code. Although, High Court in the impugned order found that

some error was committed by the learned CJM in passing the order

dated 4.2.2000, it was not much of consequence, expressing that

"On perusal of all the orders passed in Cr. Misc. No. 16672 of

1994, I do not find that the court below has committed much error

in computing the limitation period. It is true that in the order

dated 11.11.1994 further proceedings in the lower court was

stayed pending admission of the application but then the petition

was admitted vide order dated 6.2.1995 proceedings in the lower

court had not been stayed but no specific order has been passed

to that effect in the order dated 6.2.1995 and if the court below

construes that stay order still remained in respect of the

proceedings in the court below then perhaps it can not be said

much error has been committed by the learned CJM while construing

that from 11.11.1994 till 5.10.1999 the date of final order in

Cr. Misc. No. 16672 of 1994 the CJM ought not to have taken

further steps in the proceedings itself."

Having said so, the High Court dismissed the petition filed

by the appellants taking a view that the CJM had power to condone

the delay under Section 473 of the Code and as such there was no

need to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code.

Learned counsel for the appellants urged that having regard

to bar contained under Section 468(2) of the Code, the CJM as

well as the High Court committed a serious error in refusing to

quash the criminal proceedings; it is clear from the records that

the cognizance was taken by the CJM almost after a period of four

years; in the light of the order passed on 6.2.1995 by the High

Court in earlier proceeding, there was no scope to contend that

the proceedings before the Magistrate were stayed.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions

supporting the impugned order. She pointed out that in spite of

stay order passed by the High Court, at one stage the learned

Magistrate had taken cognizance but subsequently recalled the

order realizing the mistake; the delay was condoned by the

discretion of the Magistrate while taking cognizance and under

the circumstances, the impugned order need not be interfered

with.

There is no dispute that cognizance was taken of the

offences by the learned Magistrate long after a period of three

years. The Magistrate condoned the delay on the ground that the

proceedings were stayed by the High Court till 5.10.1999. On

11.11.1994, further proceedings had been specifically stayed but

by the order dated 6.2.1995, the order dated 11.11.1994 was

modified in effect to vacating the earlier order staying further

proceedings. This position is abundantly clear by a bare perusal

of the orders dated 11.11.1994 and 6.2.1995 extracted above.

When the order of 11.11.1994 was specifically modified, there was

no reason to understand the orders otherwise. It was not correct

for the learned Magistrate to say that there was stay of further

proceedings till 5.10.1999 in the face of order dated 6.2.1995

read with the order dated 11.11.1994. No other reason or ground

is given in the order of the Magistrate to condone the delay

under Section 473 of the Code. If the discretion is exercised on

relevant considerations, possibly no fault could be found with

such discretion. The High Court although noticed in the impugned

order as to the effect of order dated 6.2.1995 and found that

there was error committed by the Magistrate but took the view

that it was not a serious one. Added to this, the proceedings

are of the year 1994. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case, the CJM as well as the High Court

committed serious error in upholding taking cognizance when it is

clearly barred by Section 468(2) of the Code.

Under these circumstances, the impugned order affirming the

order of the CJM cannot be sustained. Hence, the appeal is

allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the criminal

proceedings in P.S. Case No. 16/94 in the court of CJM, Patna,

are quashed.