Punjab-Haryana High Court
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab And Others on 27 August, 2012
Author: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Bench: Naresh Kumar Sanghi
Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 1
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at
Chandigarh.
Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007
Date of Decision:- August 27, 2012
Avtar Singh
Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
Respondents.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR
SANGHI.
Present: - Mr.K.S.Boparai,Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Shilesh Gupta,
Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Advocate,
for respondents No.2 and 3.
NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing of Calendra dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code; notice of accusation dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-7); and the order dated 20.08.2007 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 2 Court, Ludhiana, whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner challenging the issuance of notice of accusation was dismissed.
Brief facts of the case are that Avtar Singh petitioner lodged FIR No. 54 dated 23.04.2003, under Section 325 read with Section 34, IPC against Amanjot Singh and his mother, Chhinder Kaur, respondents No. 2 and 3, respectively. During the investigation, the Superintendent of Police, Khanna, found that the allegations levelled by the petitioner against respondents No. 2 and 3 were false. After seeking opinion from the District Attorney (Legal), the Investigating Agency filed the cancellation report in terms of Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before learned Area Magistrate on 17.05.2003. In the meantime, petitioner Avtar Singh and respondents No. 2 and 3 had effected a compromise. The petitioner appeared before the learned Area Magistrate and made the statement that he had no objection if the said cancellation report was accepted. Consequently, the learned Area Magistrate vide his order dated 02.06.2005 accepted the cancellation report.
After the acceptance of the cancellation report, respondents No. 2 and 3 became dishonest and filed an Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 3 application before the police to initiate action against the petitioner for lodging a false FIR, i.e. FIR No. 54 dated 23.04.2003 at Police Station, Payal, under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Investigating Agency prepared a Calendra for the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner and submitted the same before the learned Area Magistrate on 31.05.2006. The petitioner appeared before the said court and was served with the notice of accusation on 14.12.2006. The said order of issuance of the notice of accusation was challenged by the petitioner before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana, by way of a criminal revision. The said criminal revision was dismissed vide order dated 20.08.2007. Hence, the present petition for quashing of Calendra; notice of accusation issued by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and the order dated 20.08.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned trial court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 4 and serve notice of accusation upon the petitioner because the Calendra filed against the petitioner was barred by limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. To elaborate his arguments, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had lodged the FIR No.54 on 23.04.2003 and the police formed the opinion on 17.05.2003 that the contents of the FIR were false and, therefore, the cancellation report was presented before the learned Area Magistrate on 17.05.2003. He further submitted that as per provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the Calendra could be presented before the learned Area Magistrate on or before 18.04.2004. Learned counsel further submitted that the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable with imprisonment up to six months, therefore, the maximum limitation for filing the Calendra was one year. He also submitted that the learned trial court was not competent to take cognizance of the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner, therefore, the Calendra dated 08.11.2005, the notice of accusation dated 14.12.2006 and the order whereby criminal revision filed by the petitioner was dismissed, are liable to be quashed. Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 5
On the other hand, learned counsel for the State assisted by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 submitted that the period of limitation would start from 02.06.2005 when the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, accepted the cancellation report, therefore, the Calendra filed by the investigating agency was well within limitation and the learned trial court rightly served the notice of accusation upon the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court,Ludhiana, was well within his jurisdiction to dismiss the criminal revision filed by the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and meticulously examined the material available on record.
The petitioner had reported the matter to the police vide FIR No. 54 dated 23.04.2003. The cancellation report was prepared and presented before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, on 17.04.2003. During the pendency of the said cancellation report, the petitioner and respondents No. 2 and 3 effected a compromise. The petitioner appeared before the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, and suffered a statement that he had no objection if the cancellation report submitted by the Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 6 investigating agency was accepted and on the basis of such statement, the cancellation report was accepted vide order dated 02.06.2005. It is apposite to mention here that it had come to the notice to the investigating agency on 17.05.2003 that the contents of FIR No. 54 dated 23.04.2003 were false. The limitation for taking action under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code would start from that date and the Calendra could have been filed on or before 18.05.2004, but in this case, the Calendra was filed before the learned Area Magistrate on 31.05.2006, i.e. approximately two years after it came to the notice of the investigating agency that the offence under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was committed by the petitioner.
Similar question came up for hearing before this court in the case of Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1993(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 633, wherein it was held as under:-
" This is an admitted fact that enquiry was held in the case by Deputy Superintendent of Police, who came to the conclusion that case against Zora Singh, Sukhdev Singh etc. was false and on 5.8.1990 S.I. Daya Singh made a report in the Rojnamcha and recommended action under Section Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 7 182 of the Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The Calendra was, however, presented in Court in July, 1992 i.e. after about 23 months of the detection of the fact that FIR No. 64 of 1990 was false. Under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the period of limitation for filing a Calendra under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is one year because the punishment for the offence is prescribed upto six months or fine of ` 1000/- or both. The limitation started running from 5-8-1990 and no Court could take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of period of limitation."
Learned revisional Court has wrongly held that the limitation would start from the date when the cancellation report was accepted by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana.
The object of introducing Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 is to put a bar of limitation on false prosecution and to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as it was thought proper by the legislation that after a long lapse time, launching of prosecution may be vexatious, because by that time even the evidence may Crl.Misc.No.M-49482 of 2007 8 disappear.
Keeping in view of the totality of the circumstances of the case, it is held that the Calandra dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) presented for prosecution of the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code was barred by limitation and as such the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, was not competent to take cognizance thereof. Accordingly, he wrongly served the notice of accusation dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-7) upon the petitioner and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, has also gone wrong in dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order of accusation.
Resultantly, the present petition is accepted and the Calandra dated 08.11.2005 (Annexure P-6) and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom are hereby quashed.
August 27, 2012 (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) Anoop JUDGE