Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karnail Kaur vs State Of Punjab And Others on 6 August, 2013
Author: Inderjit Singh
Bench: Inderjit Singh
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
Criminal Misc. No.M-10671 of 2011
.....
Date of decision:6.8.2013
Karnail Kaur
...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
....
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh
.....
Present: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Yogesh Gupta, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for the respondent-State.
.....
Inderjit Singh, J.
Karnail Kaur has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashing of charge-sheet dated 13.11.2010 as well as order framing charges by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Rajpura, whereby the petitioner has been charge-sheeted for the offence under Section 182 IPC and the order dated 7.3.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the revision petition dated 20.12.2010 filed by the petitioner has been dismissed, inter alia, on the ground that cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Court in violation of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had submitted a complaint to Senior Superintendent of Police, Patiala against Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.08 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-10671 of 2011 [2] accused Devinder Pal and other persons wherein it was stated that the accused persons have committed offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC as well as under Sections 3 (x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as `the SC & ST Act').
In the present case, the Investigating Agency got the matter inquired from DSP, Rajpura. The DSP, Rajpura instead of taking action against the accused persons found the allegations to be false and recommended that action be taken against the present petitioner under Section 182 IPC. The petitioner filed a private complaint for the offences under Sections 452, 323, 506 IPC as well as under Section 3 (x) and (xi) of the ST& ST Act. The Court on the basis of preliminary evidence summoned the accused. In pursuance of the inquiry conducted by DSP, Rajpura, Calendra was submitted under Section 182 Cr.P.C. at the instance of Station House Officer. As per provisions of Section 195 Cr.P.C., the SHO was not competent to do so. The learned trial Court passed the order dated 4.10.2008 and did not take cognizance. However, liberty was given to the Investigating Agency to file Calendra through SSP, Patiala.
After the summoning order in the complaint case, again the Calendra under Section 182 IPC has been filed on 14.11.2008, on the basis of which the trial Court passed the order for framing of the charges. It is also the case of the petitioner that under Section 182 IPC punishment is maximum upto six months and as per Section 468 Cr.P.C, the period for taking cognizance was only one year.
Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.08 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-10671 of 2011 [3] I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab and have gone through the record minutely and carefully.
A perusal of the record itself shows that the application was filed before the SSP for registration of the case before the year 2006. Then the Calendra under Section 182 IPC has been filed in the year 2006 which was returned by the Court vide order dated 4.10.2006 being not filed by competent person. However, liberty was granted to the Investigating Agency to file the same through SSP, Patiala. It was again filed on 14.11.2008 under Section 182 IPC. The punishment prescribed under Section 182 IPC is only upto six months. Section 468 Cr.P.C. Provides 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 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."
Keeping in view the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., this Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.08 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Cr. Misc. No.M-10671 of 2011 [4] Calendra has been presented in the Court being time barred. The mere fact that it has been returned on 4.10.2006 with liberty to file through the SSP, in no way, extend the limitation period provided under the Cr.P.C. Even if it is taken that it extends the limitation period, even then the Calendra has not been filed within one year of passing of the order. This Calendra under Section 182 IPC has been filed on 14.11.2008, which has clearly been filed beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Therefore, as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the Court was not competent to take cognizance it being filed beyond limitation period.
Therefore, I find merit in the petition. Otherwise also, when on the basis of private complaint, the Court has passed the summoning order, on this ground also this Calendra under Section 182 IPC cannot be filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Gammi alias Gama v. State of Punjab and another, 2009 (2) RCR (Cr.) 1, in which it is held as under:-
"It would be thus clear that the period of limitation in relations to an offence would commence from different dates depending upon three situations, as noticed in Section 469 (a)
(b) and (c). Thus, the period of limitation would commence from the date of offence or from some different dates depending upon the knowledge about the offence or the identity of the offender. The period of limitation accordingly would commence from the date of offence if the identity of the offender as well as the offences is known." Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.08 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
Cr. Misc. No.M-10671 of 2011 [5] "An FIR in a criminal case lodged by petitioner. Police after enquiry found that FIR was false and cancellation report filed in the Court on 15.4.2001 and thereafter a calendra under Section 182 IPC was prepared for taking action against the petitioner and filed in the Court on 12.8.2003. Calendra quashed being barred by limitation. Period of limitation to file Calendra was one year which began from 15.4.2001." Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Vishal Singla v. State of Haryana and others, 2012 (3) RCR (Cr.) 354, in which it is held as under:-
"Once the petitioner has filed a private complaint and the accused have been summoned, then it cannot be said that the information supplied by the petitioner to Police was false."
Therefore, the law laid down in both the cases fully applies to the present case.
From the above discussion, I accept this petition and the charge-sheet and consequential proceedings are hereby quashed. August 6, 2013. (Inderjit Singh) Judge *hsp* Parmar Harpal Singh 2013.08.08 17:40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh