NAWAZ SHARIF @ NAWAZ @ NAWAZ SHAREEFversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.28762 of 2023
      Arising Out of PS. Case No.-647 Year-2010 Thana- SASARAM NAGAR District- Rohtas
     ======================================================
     NAWAZ SHARIF @ NAWAZ @ NAWAZ SHAREEF S/O NESAR AHMAD
     R/O Village- Baradari, P.S- Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas.
                                                          ... ... Petitioner/s
                                        Versus
1.    The State of Bihar
2.   Tannu Khan S/O Bhaku Khan R/O Mohalla Baradari, P.S- Sasaram, Distt.-
     Rohtas
3.   Chhotu Khan S/O Bhaku Khan R/O Mohalla Baradari, P.S- Sasaram, Distt.-
     Rohtas
4.   Naushad Khan S/O Shoukat Khan R/O Mohalla Baradari, P.S- Sasaram,
     Distt.- Rohtas
5.   Mumshad Khan S/O Shoukat Khan R/O Mohalla Baradari, P.S- Sasaram,
     Distt.- Rohtas
6.   Budhan Khan S/O Shoukat Khan R/O Mohalla Baradari, P.S- Sasaram,
     Distt.- Rohtas
7.   Sonu Khan S/O Chaku Khan R/O Mohalla Baradari, P.S- Sasaram, Distt.-
     Rohtas
8.    Tabrej Khan S/O Iqbal Khan R/O Mohalla- Ansarganj, P.O and P.S-
      Sasaram, Distt.- Rohtas.
                                                 ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :      Mr Shubham Kr Singh (Amicus curiae)
     For the Opposite Party/s :      Mr.Anita Kumari
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANSUL
     ORAL JUDGMENT
      Date : 20-04-2026


                  Mr Madhukar Anand and Mr Shubham Kumar Singh,

     Advocates have assisted the Court in the disposal of this case in a

     very detailed manner, both on law as well as facts.

                  2 The petitioner has come up against the order dated

     15.09.2016 where the learned CJM, Sasaram in Sasaram PS Case

     No 647 of 2010 dropped the proceeding on the ground of
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28762 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
                                            2/4




       limitation. The learned CJM recorded that the FIR was lodged

       under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 329, 504 of the IPC on

       28.07.2010 and the date of taking cognizance had elapsed since the

       maximum punishment was of three years.                    The petitioner

       challenged the said order in revision also and the revisional Court

       also confirmed the same misapplying the law as laid down by the

       Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Japani Sahoo -Versus-

       Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394.

                    3 Section 469 of the Cr P C reads as under.

                          “469. Commencement of the period of
               limitation.- (1) The period of limitation, in
               relation to an offence, shall commence,-

                            (a) on the date of the offence; or

                         (b) where the commission of the
               offence was not known to the person aggrieved
               by the offence or to any police officer, the first
               day on which such offence comes to the
               knowledge of such person or to any police
               officer, whichever is earlier; or

                        (c) where it is not known by whom the
               offence was committed, the first day on which
               the identity of the offender is known to the
               person aggrieved by the offence or to the police
               officer making investigation into the offence,
               whichever is earlier.

                         (2) In computing the said period, the
               day from which such period is to be computed
               shall be excluded.”
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28762 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
                                            3/4




                    4 The Hon’ble Supreme Court on a divergence of

       opinion finally held in the case of Japani Sahoo (supra) that it is

       not within the domain of the complainant or the prosecuting

       agency to take cognizance of an offence or to issue process and the

       only thing the complainant can do is to file complaint or initiate

       proceedings in accordance with law. If that action of initiation of

       proceedings has been taken within the period of limitation, the

       complainant is not responsible for any delay on the part of the

       Court or Magistrate in issuing process or taking cognizance of the

       offence. Thus, it was held that the complainant or the informant

       should not be penalized because of the omission, default or

       inaction on the part of the Court or Magistrate.           It finally

       concluded in paragraph 53 as under:

                          “53. 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 hat 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.”

                    5 That the FIR is of 28.07.2010 and the learned

       Magistrate dropped the proceeding on 15.09.2016 holding that the

       period of limitation was over is completely erroneous reading of
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.28762 of 2023 dt.20-04-2026
                                                         4/4




                    the law. The date of occurrence, as per the FIR is 28.07.2010 and

                    the FIR was lodged on the same date and the prosecution was

                    initiated on the same date.                Thus, the question of limitation

                    completely stopped with the initiation of the prosecution as the

                    petitioner has no role to play in submission of the charge sheet or

                    further proceeding and he should not be penalized for the fault of

                    the investigating agency. Viewed from another angle, any other

                    interpretation may give a very long rope to the accused person

                    who could manage the police and get the investigation delayed.

                                 6 This application is allowed and both the orders dated

                    21.02.2023 passed in Criminal Revision No 250 of 2018 by the

                    learned Additional Sessions Judge XIX, Rohtas at Sasaram and the

                    order dated 15.09.2016 passed by the learned CJM, Rohtas at

                    Sasaram in GR No 2082 of 2010 arising out of Sasaram Town PS

                    Case No 647 of 2010 are unsustainable and are hereby quashed.

                                 7 The learned CJM, Rohtas at Sasaram is directed to

                    pass orders on the materials collected during investigation within a

                    month of supply of a copy of this order.


                                                        (Ansul, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR                       NAFR
CAV DATE                        NA
Uploading Date             27.04.2026
Transmission Date          27.04.2026