Jharkhand High Court
Ashim Kumar Samanto vs Union Of India Through Ministry Of ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Choudhary
Bench: Anil Kumar Choudhary
( 2025:JHHC:24208 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr.M.P. No.740 of 2021
------
Ashim Kumar Samanto, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Sudhir Samanto, R/o-P.O., P.S.-Saria, District-Giridih.
... Petitioner
Versus
1. Union of India through Ministry of Railway.
2. Sri Ranjit Ranjan Sahay inspector RPF Gomo at present posted at Inspector R.P.F. C.I.D., P.O. and P.S. & District-Hajipur.
... Opposite Parties
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Sidhartha Roy, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI
: Ms. Nitu Sinha, C.G.C.
------
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY
By the Court:- Heard the parties.
2. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire criminal proceeding in connection with Gomo R.P.F. Post Case No.126 of 2019 (RA21625/19) including the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad by which the learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad has taken cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 145 & 146 of the Railways Act, 1989.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the complaint, the last cause of action for the complaint arose on 26.07.2019, but the complaint was filed only on 31.08.2020 i.e. more than one year from the date of the 1 Cr. M.P. No.740 of 2021 ( 2025:JHHC:24208 ) knowledge of the alleged occurrence and it is then submitted that as the maximum punishment provided in Section 145 of the Railways Act is six months and fine and similarly the maximum punishment provided under Section 146 of the Railways Act is also six months or with fine or with both, therefore the period of limitation shall be one year, as the offence is punishable with a imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, as provided under Section 468(2)(a) of the Cr.P.C. It is next submitted that as the cognizance has been taken by the Court concerned beyond the period of limitation without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, hence, the same is not sustainable in law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Jawed Alam vs. State of Jharkhand & Another reported in 2024 JHHC 2856, submits that in para-10 of the said judgment, this Court has reiterated the settled principle of law that the accused persons does not come into the picture at all till the process is issued but this position of law is true when there is no delay in launching the prosecution but in case of delay in launching the prosecution certainly, the accused person of the case is entitled to get an opportunity of being heard before the delay is condoned, in view of the principles of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of P.K. Choudhary vs. Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF) reported in 2008 AIR SC 1937. It is lastly submitted that the prayer, as prayed for in the instant Cr.M.P, be allowed.
5. Learned C.G.C. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in the instant Cr.M.P and submits that Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. empowers a Magistrate to take cognizance of an 2 Cr. M.P. No.740 of 2021 ( 2025:JHHC:24208 ) offence after the expiry of the period of limitation if it is satisfied from the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice.
6. Learned C.G.C. appearing for the State next relying upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Ghanshyam Soni vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1301 submits that in para-15 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied upon its own judgement in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2003) 8 SCC 559, para-52 of which reads as under:-
"52 In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a court. We, therefore, overrule all decisions in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings."
and submits that the learned Magistrate having condoned the delay and has felt it necessary to take cognizance in the interest of justice; merely because the delay in taking cognizance when the cognizance is otherwise not bad in law, the same ought not be quashed and set aside. It is lastly submitted that this Cr.M.P., being without any merit, be dismissed.
7. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after carefully going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law that true it is under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., the Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has properly been explained 3 Cr. M.P. No.740 of 2021 ( 2025:JHHC:24208 ) or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. It is also a settled principle of law that no formal application for exercise of the power under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. is necessary, but the Magistrate taking cognizance is to observe the principles of natural justice and to give opportunity to an accused to resist the exercise of the power under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.
8. Now coming to the facts of the case, the undisputed facts remain that though, the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the offences even if the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed, that is one year, keeping in view of the maximum punishment involved in the offences, as already indicated above, but he has not observed the principle of natural justice, as it has not given any opportunity to the petitioner to resist the exercise of power under Section 473 of the Cr.P.C.
9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, in Gomo R.P.F. Post Case No.126 of 2019 (RA21625/19) is not sustainable in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 11.09.2020 in Gomo R.P.F. Post Case No.126 of 2019 (RA21625/19) passed by learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad, is quashed and set aside.
11. The learned Railway Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad is directed to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein who is the accused person of the case concerned.
12. In the result, this Cr.M.P., stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
13. In view of disposal of the instant Cr.M.P., the interim relief granted vide order dated 04.08.2021, is vacated.
4 Cr. M.P. No.740 of 2021
( 2025:JHHC:24208 )
14. Registry is directed to intimate the court concerned forthwith.
(Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 19th of August, 2025 AFR/ Abhiraj 5 Cr. M.P. No.740 of 2021