Punjab-Haryana High Court
Manvinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 January, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc.-M No. 27175 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision : 22.01.2013
Manvinder Kaur and others .....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr. V.K. Thakur, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab
for the State.
Mr. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate
for respondent No. 2.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have approached this Court for quashing of calendera dated 20.08.2012 filed by them under Section 182 IPC at Police Station Bholath, District Kapurthala. The petitioners would also pray for quashing of all subsequent proceedings.
Kartar Singh (petitioner No. 3) had lodged FIR No. 170 dated 14.12.2009, under Sections 323, 324 IPC at Police Station Bholath against Darshan Singh (respondent No. 2 ). Darshan Singh is son of petitioner No. 3 and brother-in-law of petitioners No. 2 and
3. Respondent is posted as ASI in Punjab Police at Kapurthala. He, accordingly, filed an application for further inquiry into the FIR when Criminal Misc.-M No. 27175 of 2012 (O&M) -2- the cancellation report in this case was prepared. Copy of the cancellation report is dated 30.08.2010. The cancellation report was presented in the Court on 30.08.2010. Petitioner No. 3 was summoned and he made statement that he did not agree with the cancellation report. Copy of the statement, which petitioner No. 3 made on 23.05.2011, is also on record. The case was adjourned to 23.07.2011. On that day, it was stated by petitioner No. 1 that the matter had been compromised and he had no objection in case the cancellation report submitted by the police was accepted. On this basis, cancellation report was accepted on 25.08.2011. Nearly after two years, the police has chosen to file this calendra against all the three petitioners on the ground that the FIR lodged by petitioner No. 3 was found to be false and, accordingly, the proceedings have been initiated against them under Section 182 IPC. The petitioners, have, accordingly, approached this Court through the present petition.
The sole ground of challenge is that filing of this calendra is barred by limitation. According to the counsel for the petitioners, offence under Section 182 IPC was committed on the date, the false allegations were made by the petitioners in this FIR. The falsity of the allegations would be to the knowledge of the investigating agency when they prepared cancellation report. Obviously, this cancellation report was filed in the Court on 30.08.2010. Accordingly, the falsity of the allegation would be to the knowledge of the investigating agency with effect from this date when cancellation report was filed in the Court.
Criminal Misc.-M No. 27175 of 2012 (O&M) -3-
Section 468 Cr.P.C., regulates the period for taking cognizance and the period during which such cognizance can be taken. As per this Section, except as otherwise provided, no court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after expiry of the period of limitation. The period of limitation as provided under this Section, six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
Accordingly, the counsel contends that the offence under Section 182 IPC is punishable upto six months and as such limitation for taking cognizance of the offence under this Section would be one year as per the provisions made in Section 468 Cr.P.C. How the period of limitation as to commence would be governed by Section 469 Cr.P.C. This Section provides that period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence on the date of the offence or where the commission of offence is 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. In addition, where it is not known by whom the offence is 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.
Criminal Misc.-M No. 27175 of 2012 (O&M) -4-
The day, the cancellation report was submitted in the Court in the FIR lodged by petitioner No. 3, the police officer making investigation was in the knowledge that the offence of making false allegation has been committed. He would also have knowledge about the offender. Accordingly, the date the cancellation report was prepared or atleast submitted before the Court would be a day from which the limitation in this case would commence. Having submitted the cancellation report on 30.08.2010, the calendera in this case has been filed on 23.08.2012. This calendera could have been filed within a period of one year from the date of knowledge of offence and the offender. Since the same has been filed almost after two years, the plea of bar of limitation would certainly be available to the petitioners to challenge the said action of the respondents.
In support, the counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa versus Senior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Patiala and another 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 94, where this Court has viewed that the prosecution of complaint under Section 182 IPC has a limitation for a period of one year and this would start when the police filed cancellation report and not when the Magistrate accepted the cancellation report. The same issue was considered in the case of Gammi @ Gama versus State of Punjab and another 2009 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 1. The judgment passed in this case of Harbhajan Singh Bajwa (supra) was followed in this case. The relevant observation may be noted here as under:-
Criminal Misc.-M No. 27175 of 2012 (O&M) -5-
" After investigation of the FIR recorded on 2.2.2001, the cancellation report was filed before the Court on 15.4.2001. It can, thus, be said that by 15.4.2001, it was in the knowledge of police that false FIR has been registered by or at the behest of the petitioner. This was further given colour of falsehood, when complaint in this regard, in the form of calendra under Section 182 IPC, was filed on 12.8.2003. This was taken notice of by the Court on 25.8.2003 and notice issued to the petitioner and others. It can, thus, be stated that by 25.8.2003, the offence as well as offenders were known. Offence in this case was committed on the date when the false FIR was filed on 2.2.2001. By 15.4.2001, the offence and the offender were known. The complaint, thus, could be filed within one year from 15.4.2001. It was filed only on 12.8.2003. Thus, it can safely be stated that on date when the cognizance of the offence was taken by the Magistrate i.e. on 25.8.2003, the period of limitation, as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C., had already expired. Section 468 Cr.P.C. would bar the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence in this case."
In view of above legal position, the limitation for taking cognizance in this case would commence from 30.08.2010 when cancellation report was submitted. On this date, the police officer knew the commission of offence under Section 182 IPC. It is clear that the calendera in this case has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The same, therefore, cannot be sustained. The petition is allowed. The calendera and all subsequent proceedings pending against the petitioners are hereby quashed.
January 22, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE