- (1.) This is an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing proceedings in T.R. Case No. 592/2013 in the 3rd Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Purulia and for setting aside an order dated 5.6.2013 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia in Case No. C- 61/13. This case has been filed by three petitioners namely Subhash Kuiry @ Subhas Chandra Kuiri, Bikash Kuiry @ Bikash Chandra Kuiri and Ajit Kuiry @ Ajit Kumar Kuiri against Naran Bauri. Petitioners have alleged that the opposite party Naran Bauri lodged a complaint earlier being No. C- 132/09 under Sections 143/188/323/379/34 of the Indian Penal Code against petitioner nos. 1 and 2 in which cognizance was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 1.12.2009 and the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Purulia where the case was registered as T.R. Case No. 521/09 relating to alleged offence dated 27.11.2009. In that case complainant Naran Bauri failed to adduce evidence before charge and remained absent for which the present petitioner nos. 1 and 2 as accused were discharged under Section 245 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Subsequently, on 5.6.2013 this opposite party Naran Bauri as complainant filed another complaint being No. C-61/13 alleging same occurrence dated 27.11.2009 against the present petitioners before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia when the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the offences again and transferred the case to the 3rd Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Purulia where it was registered as T.R. Case No. 592/13.
(2.) In the instant case the second cognizance taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Purulia on 5.6.2013 has been challenged on two-fold grounds. They have claimed that taking of second cognizance on the self-same occurrence after discharge of accused persons relating to the same occurrence is liable to be quashed as illegal and taking of cognizance in C- 61/13 on 5.6.2013 relating to occurrence dated 27.11.2009 is barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time of hearing no one appeared for the opposite party to contest the case although previously one affidavit-in-opposition was filed by him in this case. At the time of hearing learned Advocate for the petitioners has cited some decisions in the cases as follows: 1. Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Ranjit Kaur, 2001 CalCriLR 172. 2. Surendra Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2005 12 SCC 361. 3. Suresh T. Kilachand Vs. Sampat Shripat Lambate and another, 1992 CrLJ 1203. 4. Arun Vyas and Another Vs. Anita Vyas, 1999 4 SCC 690. 5. Pramatha Nath Talukdar and Surendra Mohan Basu Vs. Saroj Ranjan Sarkar, 1962 AIR(SC) 876.
(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioners has submitted that the decision in the case of Jatinder Singh and Ors. Vs. Ranjit kaur is not applicable in the instant case and that case is distinguishable from this case because in the reported decision there was no case of discharge of accused in the first case but in the instant case accused persons were discharged in the first case.;