- (1.) By the Court. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.01.2008 whereby learned C.J.M. Ist Class, Dhanbad took cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 279/304-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with C.P. Case No. 935/2006.
(2.) It is submitted by Sri M.B.Lal, learned counsel for the petitioners that in the instant case, admittedly, occurrence took place on 01.04.2004, whereas cognizance under Sections 279 and 304A I.P.C. was taken on 19.01.2008 i.e. after three years from the date of occurrence. He submits that as per Section 468(2) of the Cr.P.C., it is imperative for the Magistrate to take cognizance within three years from the date of occurrence. Accordingly, he submits that the order of cognizance, bad in law, therefore, cannot be sustained.
(3.) On the other hand, Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for O.P.No. 2, submitted that in the instant case, a police case instituted and after investigation police submitted Final Form in favour of petitioners on 24.05.2005, thereafter, O.P.No. 2 filed a protest petition on 27.04.2006. It is further submitted that cognizance was taken within three years from the date of protest petition. Thus cognizance of offences taken under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is within time stipulated.;