Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Diganta Barah vs The State Of Assam on 31 March, 2022
Bench: Indira Banerjee, A.S. Bopanna
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.8 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6508/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 17-05-2018
in CRLP No. 976/2016 passed by the Gauhati High Court)
DIGANTA BARAH Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM & ANR. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 110007/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT IA No. 110006/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
WITH
Diary No(s). 31496/2018 (II)
(FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 141251/2018 FOR
CONDONATION OF DELAY IN REFILING ON IA 141255/2018)
Date : 31-03-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
For Parties Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR
Ms. Radika Gupta, Adv.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Baani Khanna, Adv.
Mr. Praveen Gaur, Adv.
Mr. Karan Mamgain, Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Gopal Shankar Narayan, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR
Mr. Ravi Chandra Prakash, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh K. Singh, Adv.
Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv.
Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Amit, Adv.
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2022.04.21
14:21:36 IST
Reason: Mr. Nalin Kohli, Sr. AAG
Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR
Mr. Ankit Roy, Adv.
Ms. Nimisha Menon, Adv.
2
Mr. Ishaan Borthakur, Adv.
Mr. Aastik Dhingra, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 6508/2018 This special leave petition is filed against an order dated 17th May, 2018 passed by the High Court at Guwahati dismissing the Criminal Revisional Petition being Criminal Petition No.976 of 2016 filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings initiated pursuant to an FIR lodged by the respondent No.2.
The facts giving rise to the special leave petition are very briefly referred to hereinafter:
On 30th August, 2011, the petitioner filed a complaint with the Officer-in-Charge of the Karimganj Police Station against the respondent No.2, (the complainant in an earlier FIR lodged against the petitioner) for offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 384, 385, 389, 353 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) read with Section 66(A) of the Information and Technology Act, 2008.
In the aforesaid complaint, it was alleged that the respondent No.2 had hatched a criminal conspiracy against the petitioner and had registered a complaint against the petitioner at Karimganj Police Station, which had been registered as Karimganj PS Case No.483/2011. In the said FIR, which gave rise to Karimganj PS Case No.483/2011, the respondent No.2 complained that the raid had been conducted by the police personnel at the residence of the 3 respondent No.2 in connection with Karimganj PS Case No.483/2011 and at the residence of the respondent No.2 has been searched and certain articles were seized.
It is the case of the complainant/respondent No.2 that the raid was carried on upon intimation to representatives of the audio visual media. The entire proceedings were televised/filmed. Ultimately, the complaint lodged by the petitioner against the respondent No.2 was ended in closure. The final report of the closure was taken on record on 15th May, 2015 and the complaint giving rise to the instant proceedings, was filed by the respondent No.2 on 17th September, 2015.
The petitioner sought quashing of the complaint mainly on the ground that the same was barred by limitation, as recorded by the Guahati High Court. The relevant part of the impugned order is extracted hereinbelow:
“7. As the basic challenge to the complaint case so filed by the respondent pertaining to limitation, let the said aspect be taken up for appreciation. The petitioner herein lodged the Karimganj P.S. Case No.483/11 against the respondent and others which resulted final report and the same report was also accepted by the learned Court on 15.05.2015 and the same was not challenged. The respondent/complainant challenged the said FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case No.483/11, before the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court vide Criminal Pet. No. 554/11 and the Court was pleased to grant stay of the impugned proceeding of the FIR by order 24.01.2012, which continued up to 26.06.2012.
The findings of the said order in Crl. Pet. No.554/2011 was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court which was registered as SLP (Crl.) 6252/12 and thereafter, the impugned proceeding pertaining to the Karimganj P.S. Case No.483/11 was stayed by Hon’ble Supreme Court by order dated 27.08.2012, which continued up to 30.09.2013, when the investigation was directed to be conducted by the Superior Officer above the rank of the Superintendent of Police and thus there was stay of the said proceeding of said FIR both in Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as well as the Apex Court. Following calculation has been shown by the 4 respondent regarding filing of the case-
“Total period w.e.f. 30/8/2011 (Date of lodging FIR of Karimganj P.S. Case no.483/11 to 17/9/15 date of filing Complaint Case No.783/2015) was = 1482 Days If 3 years period as per Section 468 (2) (C) Cr.P.C. is taken into account then the complainant was needed to file her CR Case No.783/2015 on or before 29/8/2014 i.e. within 1095 days.
From 29/8/2014 to 17/9/2015 delay has arisen 385 days i.e. 1482-1095=385 days.
Now total stay period both in Hon’ble High Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court if added, it comes into total at 555 days, and if delay period of 385 days is deducted from stay period of 555 days then there remained 170 days in hand of the complainant. As such, the case of the respondent/complainant is protected u/s 470 (2) of Cr.P.C.”
8. The above contention of the respondent is not under challenged that the proceeding pertaining to the said case was stayed under the order of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court as well as the Supreme Court for a long period and as per the provision of Section 470 (2) Cr.P.C., the period of stay is to be excluded from the limitation period. From the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in SLP (Crl.) 6252/12, dated 27.10.2014, it reveals that the said SLP was disposed of on that ver day. Going by the calculation as shown by the respondent, period of limitation in this case cannot be counted in terms of the Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the case will come u/s 470 (2) Cr.P.C. and in that view of the matter, the case is not bared by limitation as has been contended by the petitioner side and accordingly, it can be held that the case was filed within the period of limitation in terms of Section 470 (2) Cr.P.C.” From the facts pleaded, it cannot be held that the complaint was liable to be quashed in exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the ground of the complaint being barred by limitation. It is not necessary for this Court to decide, at this stage, whether the proceedings were, in fact, 5 barred by limitation or not.
As found by the High Court, prima facie, the complaint filed by the respondent No.2 discloses an offence. It cannot be said that the complaint does not at all disclose any offence.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
Diary No(s). 31496/2018 Delay condoned.
We are not inclined to interfere with the judgment and order impugned.
The present special leave petition is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUSHI SUNEJA) (MATHEW ABRAHAM) SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)