Jharkhand High Court
Barun Kumar And Ors vs The State Of Jharkhand on 18 November, 2017
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. M. P. No. 567 of 2017
---
1.Barun Kumar
2.Tarun Kumar
3.Tejaswita Kumari @ Tejaswi @ Rinki
4.Amar Kumar
5.Shiv Kumar
6.Birendra Kumar
7.Sulochana Devi
8.Hafiz Ahmad ... ... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Opposite Party
---
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
---
For the Petitioners : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
For the Opposite Party : Mr. Nagmani Tiwary, A.P.P.
---
4/18.11.2017Heard Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Nagmani Tiwary, learned A.P.P. for the State.
In this application the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 09.04.2015 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhanbad in G. R. No. 1597 of 2006 by which cognizance has been taken for the offences punishable under Sections 379, 448, 504/34 of I.P.C. A further challenge has been made to the order dated 04.02.2017 passed by the learned C.J.M., Dhanbad by which the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. has been rejected.
It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that so far as the order dated 04.02.2017 is concerned, the same was rejected only on account of the fact that the criminal court does not have the power to review or recall the earlier order passed by itself. As regards the criminal case it has been submitted that that a case was instituted under Section 304(B)/34 of I.P.C. being Dhanbad P. S. Case No. 656 of 2005 by the petitioners and by way of retaliation, the subsequent case under Section 379 of I.P.C. has been instituted which is only with respect to stealing of some household articles. He further submits that as a retaliation to the earlier case, the subsequent case has been lodged and on consideration of the said circumstances, the entire criminal proceeding be quashed or in the alternative since the cognizance has been taken beyond -2- the period of limitation, the criminal proceeding as against the petitioner is also technically barred.
Learned A.P.P. for the State opposed the prayer.
The first consideration which is made by this Court is with respect to the order dated 04.02.2017. The incident had taken place on 14.05.2006 ad the FIR was instituted on 22.05.2006. Subsequently charge-sheet was submitted on 31.03.2015 and thereafter cognizance was taken on 09.04.2015. Although, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the cognizance was barred by limitation as it was taken after almost 9 years from the date of incident of the institution of the complaint, but the primary consideration which is made to calculate the period of limitation is the date of incident and the date of filing of the complaint or reporting the same before the police. Inaptitude and latches on the part of the police cannot lead to stifling the prosecution case instituted by the complainant. This view has been taken in the case of "Sara Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases" reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62, which reads as follows:
51. "In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale which is followed in Japani Sahoo lays down the correct law.
Krishna Pillai will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C."
In such view of the matter therefore, it cannot be said that the cognizance which was taken by the learned court below was beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C.
Coming back to the second leg of the argument advanced by the leaned counsel for the petitioners, it has been submitted that by way of retaliation, a case under Section 379 of I.P.C. was instituted, but perusal of the FIR reveals about the presence of the petitioner and taking away of several articles and cash of Rs. 30,000/- as has been alleged by the informant. Charge-sheet has been submitted on 31.03.2015 leading to taking of cognizance.