Punjab-Haryana High Court
Tarsem Lal & Anr vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 25 August, 2014
Author: Daya Chaudhary
Bench: Daya Chaudhary
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUN JAB AN D HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013
DATE OF DECISION: August 25,2014
Tarsem Lal and another
....Petitioners
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY
Present: Mr.Animesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Parupkar Singh Ghuman, Addl.A.G., Punjab.
Mr.J.S.Mehndiratta, Advocate for respondent No.2.
DAYA CHAUDHARY, J.
The present petition has been filed under section 482 CrPC for quashing of order of framing of charge dated 6.3.2010 in case FIR No.162 dated 13.8.2004 at Police Station Moga under Sections 406,384 IPC and other proceedings arising therefrom.
The charge was framed against the petitioners for offence punishable under sections 406,384 IPC by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga which was challenged by the petitioners by way of filing revision petition before the Additional Sessions Judge, Moga but the revision petition was also dismissed on 30.10.2012.
KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 2
The allegations levelled in the complaint were investigated by the police and cancellation report was submitted but the complainant did not agree with the cancellation report submitted by the police and learned CJM, Moga returned the cancellation report for further investigation vide order dated 10.5.2010. Thereafter again the investigation was conducted and no offence was made out against the petitioners and again cancellation report was submitted before the Ilaqa Magistrate. The complainant did not agree with the cancellation report and contested the same. Learned CJM, Moga initiated the process against the petitioners which was challenged before this Court by way of filing CRM No.M-19754 of 2009 and prayer was for quashing of FIR and other proceedings arising therefrom. The said petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 22.7.2009 with liberty to take all pleas at an appropriate stage. Thereafter, charges were framed against the petitioners on 6.3.2010 under Sections 406,384 IPC.
The impugned order of charge has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that the proceedings cannot be initiated after the expiry of period of limitation for taking cognizance, i.e. three years as maximum punishment which can be awarded under sections 406, 384 IPC is three years.
KAMAL DEEP SEHRA2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 3
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the dispute arose between the parties in the year 1994 and FIR was registered in the year 2004 and maximum punishment under Sections 406,384 IPC which can be awarded is three years. Learned counsel also submits that there is a bar to take cognizance on the expiry of period of limitation as per provisions of Section 468 CrPC. Learned counsel also submits that there is no material on record to frame charge but neither the period of limitation has been considered nor the material on record has been considered and charge has wrongly been framed. Learned counsel prays for quashing of charge on the basis of expiry of period of limitation as provided under Section 468 CrPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments rendered in Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra 1978 AIR (SC) 47, Siriniwas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal Pradesh 1988 AIR (SC) 1729 and Gammi @ Gama v. State of Punjab and another 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 1.
Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the petitioners have already filed the revision petition to challenge the order of charge before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, which was dismissed and hence second revision petition is not maintainable on same ground. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 4 earlier petition for quashing of FIR was dismissed on 22.7.2009 and second petition for quashing of FIR is not maintainable. Learned counsel also submits that the period of limitation would be considered from the date of knowledge of commission of offence and not from the date of occurrence. Learned counsel has also relied upon the judgments rendered in State of Rajasthan v. Sanjay Kumar and others (1998) 5 SCC 82 and Balram Singh v. Sukhwant Kaur and another 1991(3) RCR (Criminal) 404 and Gurbhagat Singh @ Lalli v. Roor Singh Crl.Revision No.110 of 2012 decided on 29.8.2012.
Heard arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the impugned order of charge and other documents, including FIR, order passed in revision as well as order passed in the earlier petition filed by the petitioners.
A short issue for decision by this Court is whether the period of limitation will be considered from the date of occurrence or from the date of knowledge.
Section 468 CrPC is reproduced as under:
"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 5 specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be--
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years."
Sections 467, 473 of the Code deal with limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Section 467 defines the period of limitation for the purpose of chapter as specified in Section 468 CrPC for taking cognizance of offence. Sections 468 and 473 CrPC provide bar to take cognizance on expiry of period of limitation and extension of period of limitation in certain cases respectively. In the present case, the quashing of charge has been claimed only on the ground of expiry of period of limitation , whereas, as per stand of the respondents, period of limitation starts running from the date of knowledge and not from the date of occurrence. KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 6 Section 469 CrPC deals with commencement of period of limitation which is reproduced as under:
"469. Commencement of the period of limitation - (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offender, 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) xxx xxx xxx"
On perusal of provision, it is clear from sub section (1) that three alternative starting points regarding the commencement of period of limitation have been specified
(a) the date of the offence; (b) the first day on which an offence came to the knowledge of the person aggrieved by KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 7 the offence or to any police officer, whichever is earlier, in a case where the commission of the offence was not known to any of them, or ( c) 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. This situation arises only in case it is not known by whom the offence was committed. Normally a period of limitation would start from the date of offence but in certain circumstances some time the commission of offence or identity of the offender comes to the knowledge of the concerned after the lapse of some time and in such situations, clauses (b) and (c) would apply. In Satyanarayana General Traders v. State (1993) 2 Crimes 203 (AP), learned Single Judge of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that for prosecution of offence of misbranding under the Insecticides Act, 1968, a period of limitation would start from the date on which the report of Analyst was received but not from the date of taking sample and as such under Section 468(1)(b) of CrPC would be attracted. In R.S.Arora v. State 1987 Crl. LJ 1215 the issue before the Delhi High Court was whether for prosecution under Sections 7, 19 and 16(1) of the Seeds Act, 1966, the period of limitation of six months would start from the date of collection of samples under clause (a) or from the date of KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 8 Seed Analyst's report for purposes of clause (b) of Section 469(1) CrPC. Learned Single Judge of Delhi High Court took the view that limitation commences from the date of submission of report by the Seed Analyst to the Inspector and as such under Section 469 (1)(b) would apply. Similar view has been taken by Bombay High Court in Omprakash Gulabchandji Partani v. Ashok 1992 Cri.LJ 2704(Bombay).
In Division Bench of this Court in Balram Singh's case (supra) it was held that offence under Section 406 of IPC is a continuing. Learned Single Judge of this Court has held in its judgment that period of limitation is not to be reckoned from the date of occurrence but being a continuing cause of action no period of limitation is applicable. The said judgment of Single Bench was upheld by the Division bench of this Court. The observation made by learned Single Judge is reproduced as under:
"The controversy whether the offence punishable under Section 406, Indian Penal Code, pertaining to non return of stridhan of the wife by the husband and other relations of the husband was a continuing offence or not was referred by this Court in this petition to a larger Bench vide order dated 3.5.1990. The Division bench had answered the reference vide its order dated 9.1.1991 in the KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 9 affirmative holding that till the husband and the other relations, as the case may be, return the property forming part of the stridhan, a fresh cause of action accrues to the wife. Consequently, the contention of the petitioner that the complaint having been filed much after the expiry of period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c ) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is not tenable, as the period of limitation is not to be reckoned from the day when the wife was allegedly turned out of the house by the husband but would continue giving a fresh cause of action until the stridhan is returned."
This view was also taken in judgment of this Court in Gurbhagat Singh's case (supra).
In the present case, the plot was sold to the complainant vide registered sale deed dated 9.12.1991 by one Anil Jain and he executed an affidavit dated 9.12.1991 and issued receipt regarding payment of Rs.49,000/- to the complainant. Thereafter, both the petitioners sold the plot by taking original documents from the complainant . In this case, cancellation report was prepared twice but the same was not accepted by learned Magistrate and order for re- investigation was passed. On completion of re-investigation, KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 10 the cancellation report was again produced before the Learned Magistrate and after recording statement of complainant, the Court took cognizance and rejected the cancellation report. The stand of the petitioners are that they have nothing to do with the transaction in dispute and the respondent No.2 is not the owner of the property as the original title deed of the plot was handed over to the petitioners. Respondent No.2 purchased the property and an agreement to sell, will, receipt and affidavit as well as general power of attorney were executed of the said property. The property was sold to respondent No.2 on 9.12.1991. As per case of the respondents, the petitioners took the original documents from respondent No.2 on the pretext of selling the plot in collusion with Anil Kumar and sold to one Subhash Garg on the basis of general power of attorney dated 26.5.1995.
As per allegations, petitioner No.1 was a witness to the execution of general power of attorney and he had misused the documents which were handed over to him and as such the offence under section 406 IPC is a continuing offence and the concept of period of limitation is not applicable in the present case. Moreover, the petitioners had earlier filed CRM No.M-19574 of 2009 for quashing of FIR and it was dismissed on 22.7.2009. Now the present KAMAL DEEP SEHRA 2014.09.01 15:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court. Chandigarh Crl.Misc. No.M-7213 of 2013 11 petition has been filed for quashing of charge. The petitioner also filed revision petition which was dismissed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Moga on 30.10.2012. Virtually the present petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC which amounts to second revision petition against the order passed by CJM, Moga which is contrary to provisions of section 397(3) CrPC.
Accordingly, the present petition amounts to second revision petition which is not maintainable.
There is no merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners.
Dismissed as such.
August 25,2014 (Daya Chaudhary)
KD Judge
KAMAL DEEP SEHRA
2014.09.01 15:13
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court. Chandigarh