Madhya Pradesh High Court
Om Prakash Malviya vs Aditya Narayan Dubey on 31 July, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
CRR No. 2342/2016
(OM PRAKASH MALVIYA Vs ADITYA NARAYAN DUBEY)
Jabalpur Dated: 31.07.2018
Shri R.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the
applicants.
None for the respondents.
At the request of learned counsel for the applicants, the matter is heard finally.
This Criminal Revision has been preferred under Section 397/401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Singrauli in Criminal Revision No.101/2011 wherein the order dated 05.05.2011 passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Singrauli in Complaint Case No.773/2009 was set aside by the Revisional Court below. The learned trial Court has dismissed a complaint against the applicants for offence punishable under Sections 406, 403, 420, 419 and 467 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code as time barred has been set aside.
Learned Revisional Court has remanded the matter back to the trial Court to proceed further under Section 406 of IPC against the applicants.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH The applicants have challenged the aforesaid order on the grounds that respondent No.1 had not shown any sufficient reason of the delay caused in filing the complaint. Section 468 of CrPC clearly bar to take cognizance after lapse of period of limitation. This position of law has not been considered by the Revisional Court below. Therefore, the applicants prayed to set aside the order dated 19.08.2016 passed by the Revisional Court.
The facts of the case are that initially a private criminal complaint has been filed by respondent No.1 against applicant Nos. 1 and 2 under Sections 406, 408, 468, 471/34 of Indian Penal Code before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baidhan, District- Singrauli which was registered under Section 406/403 of the Indian Penal Code then dismissed on 07.03.2009 under Section 249 of Cr.P.C.
Thereafter, respondent No.1 has filed another private complaint on 12.03.2009 before the same Court under Sections 403, 406, 420, 419, 467/34 of Indian Penal Code which was registered on 06.07.2009 under Sections 406, 403, 420, 419, 467 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and committed to the Court of Sessions.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH The Trial Court found no case under Sections 419, 420, 467 and 468 of Indian Penal Code is made out against the applicants. Only offence under Section 406 of IPC is prima facie is made out which is triable by the Court of J.M.F.C.. The Criminal Revision has been filed by respondent No.1 against the applicants which was dismissed by the Revisional Court below with the finding that prima facie no offence under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code was made out and also held that it may be a case of Civil nature.
Thereafter, applicants have filed an application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that for the offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code, case is time barred. The trial Court held that complaint is hit by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
After considering the provisions of Section 469 of Cr.P.C. learned Revisional Court below held that the limitation for any offence starts from the date of commission of offence or if any police officer or aggrieved person has no knowledge about the commission of offence then limitation starts from the date of knowledge. In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH The Court below relied on the principle laid down in case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62 and held that the period of limitation shall commence after filing of the complaint and date of cognizance is not relevant for the limitation purpose.
In the present case, complaint has been filed by the respondent on 12.03.2009 in the light of principle laid down in case of Sarah Mathew (supra) and Section 469 (2) of Cr.P.C. date of presentation of complaint shall be excluded.
Subsequent complaint has been filed after 3 years 5 months and 9 days from the date of the incident. The Sessions Court has found that offence under Section 406 of IPC is only made out against the applicants. Therefore, complaint under Section 406 of IPC is not time barred because of dismissal of earlier complaint filed by Shambhunath Singh then Regional Secretory of Labour Union.
The facts of the earlier complaint and subsequent complaint are same. Earlier complaint was dismissed under Section 249 of CrPC. It was within time from the date of offence i.e.16.09.2005. Earlier complaint was filed on 28.11.2005. In the continuance of earlier complaint, subsequent complaint is not treated as time barred.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed at motion stage.
(Smt. Anjuli Palo) Judge shabana Digitally signed by SHABANA ANSARI Date: 2018.08.04 12:57:12 +05'30'