Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan vs State Of Punjab And Others on 26 February, 2014
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M-11065 of 2013 (O&M)
Date of decision: February 26, 2014
Sant Gurmeet Ram Rahim Singh Insan
.. Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
.. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta
Present: Mr. S.K. Garg Narwana, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Naveen Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Grewal, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. R.K. Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No.2. Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3 & 4.
Surinder Gupta, J Heard.
An FIR bearing No.262 dated 20.5.2007 was registered on the complaint of Rajinder Singh Sidhu-respondent No.2 for offence under Section 295-A IPC. After investigation in that case, the police presented the cancellation report on 25.1.2012.
Before filing of the cancellation report, a complaint was filed under Section 295-A IPC by Jaspal Singh and Hardeep Singh, respondents No.3 and 4 respectively, on which Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda passed the order dated 2.4.2012 (Annexure P-8) summoning the accused for offence under Sections 295-A/298 and 153-A IPC.
In the complaint, the complainant had made specific request for extension of period of limitation under Section 473 Cr.P.C.
The cancellation report as well as the complaint case were taken together by the trial court and a composite order (Annexure P-8) was passed summoning the accused.
The petitioner preferred revision against the order of the trial court which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide order dated 8.2.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioner and private respondents are ad idem that the trial court as well as revisional court have not looked into Kumar Deepak 2014.02.26 18:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Crl. Misc. No. M-11065 of 2013 (O&M) -2- the point of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. The point of limitation was specifically raised before the revisional court but the same was left open with the direction that it can be raised before the trial court at an appropriate stage.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as private respondents submit that the court has taken the cognizance for offence punishable under Section 295-A/298/153-A IPC, vide order dated 2.4.2012. The offence under Section 295-A IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years; offence under Section 298 IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of one year; and offence under Section 153-A IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years. It has been submitted that before taking cognizance, the trial court was required to first adjudicate the point of limitation and then proceed further.
It has further been submitted that on the request of the complainant seeking extension of limitation no order was passed by the trial court and the revisional court has also not recorded any finding on it.
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as private respondents, this petition is accepted. Orders passed by both the courts below are set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial court to look into the point of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. before taking cognizance on the basis of the complaint and the cancellation report filed by the police in this case.
The complainant will appear before the trial court on 22.3.2014 and will be at liberty to raise all the legal pleas available at the time of arguments.
Disposed of accordingly.
February 26, 2014 (Surinder Gupta)
deepak Judge
Kumar Deepak
2014.02.26 18:26
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document