Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gammi @ Gama vs State Of Punjab And Another on 11 September, 2008
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 11, 2008
Gammi @ Gama
.....Petitioner
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. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mehardeep Singh, AAG, Punjab,
****
RANJIT SINGH, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner has filed this petition, seeking quashing of the complaint/calendra filed against him under Section 182 IPC, (Annexure P-2), dated 12.8.2003. The primary ground raised by the petitioner is that no cognizance of an offence under Section 182 IPC can be taken against him as the offence as alleged is barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C.
The facts necessary to appreciate the submission made by the petitioner are that one Nizamdin filed a complaint on 2.2.2001, on the basis of which FIR under Sections 342, 363, 364, 452, 506, CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 2 }:
148, 149 IPC was registered against various persons. One of the accused named in the FIR, namely, Basira Ali, moved an application before S.S.P., Ropar, on 5.2.2001, seeking an enquiry into the false and frivolous case registered against him and his co-accused. This application was marked to DSP, Head Quarter, for detailed enquiry and investigation. Avtar Singh, DSP, conducted enquiry in this case and examined various witnesses. He ultimately found that Kaka son of Wali Mohd., resident of Jandiala, Police Station Jalandhar had recorded his false name and address and had got registered the false FIR No.10 dated 2.2.2001 in connivance with Sher Ali and Gammi (present petitioner). On the basis of this enquiry, cancellation report was filed on 1.4.2001.
Prosecution of the petitioner and others under Section 182 IPC was initiated. Besides pleading the plea of bar to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner, the counsel would also submit that no offence under Section 182 IPC would be revealed against the petitioner as he was not the one who had authored the so called false complaint, leading to registration of an FIR against the then accused persons. Accordingly the present petition is filed, seeking quashing of the complaint and calendra filed against the petitioner.
On notice having been issued, reply on behalf of the State is filed. The fact of lodging of FIR by Nizamdin against Basira Ali, Dhani etc. is conceded and so also the fact that this FIR was found to be false on an enquiry held by DSP. It is also submitted that calendra under Section 182 IPC has been filed in the Court of Ilaqa CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 3 }:
Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ropar, against the petitioner and his co-accused. The stand of the State is that calendra/complaint has been filed within a period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the Court, thus, is competent to take cognizance of the offence alleged against the petitioner.
It is, thus, required to be seen whether the charges alleged against the petitioner are barred by limitation for the Court to take cognizance of the offences alleged or not.
The facts are not much in dispute. The FIR in this case was lodged on 2.2.2001. After holding investigation, the said FIR was found to be false and on the basis of enquiry, cancellation report was prepared on 05.4.2001 and filed in the Court on the same day. Thereafter, a calendra was prepared for taking action against the petitioner and others for lodging this false complaint, which was filed in the Court on 12.8.2003. The Court applied its mind to the said calendra on 25.8.2003 and issued notice to the petitioner and others. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner appeared before the Court on 7.11.2003 and furnished bail bonds. It is, thus, required to be seen if the present offence under Section 182 IPC would be barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C or not.
Section 468 Cr.P.C. creates a bar for taking cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation and reads:-
"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 CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 4 }:
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.
(6) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."
Accordingly a period of one year is provided as a limitation in respect of those offences, which are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months. As the offence for which the petitioner has been summoned is under Section 182 IPC and is punishable with an imprisonment for six months, the limitation in this case would be one year. Section 468 Cr.P.C. cannot be read in isolation as the commencement of period of limitation is regulated by the provisions of Section 469 Cr.P.C., which reads as under:-
"469. Commencement of the period of limitation.-(1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence,-
CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 5 }:
(a) on the date of the offence; or
(b) where the commission of the offence was 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; or (c ) where it is not known by whom the offence was 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.
(2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be computed shall be excluded."
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.
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 CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 6 }:
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 State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, 1981 Crl.L.J.722, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the object of Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on prosecution was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which the material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of offence. Further, in Moti Pathak and others v. State of U.P., 1988(2) Crimes page 659, it was observed that the plea of bar of limitation can be raised at any stage of proceedings and that even when it was not raised, the Magistrate should have considered his power and authority in the light of sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C.
CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 7 }:
Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn my attention to a judgment of this Court in Harbhajan Singh Bajwa Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, Distt. Patiala and another, 2000 (3) R.C.R. (Criminal) 94. This was a case almost identical to the facts in the instant case. The complaint lodged with the police was found to be false and cancellation report was submitted in the year 1997. The prosecution of the complainant was sought under Section 182 IPC. It was held by this Court that limitation of one year would start when the police filed cancellation report and not when the Magistrate accepted the cancellation report in October 1999. It was accordingly held that prosecution of this complaint would be barred under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. In case of Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1993 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 633, similar view was taken by this Court by holding that period of limitation of one year would start from the date when police found it to be false report. Thus, it can safely be concluded that cognizance of offence taken in this case by the Court would be barred by limitation as laid down under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
Even otherwise, it may need a notice that the petitioner was not the one, who had filed the complaint, leading to registration of an FIR against the complainant. It is also averred in the petition that the complaint, leading to registration of an FIR was lodged by Nizamdin and the name of the petitioner has been brought in as the one who had connived in filing this report. It will be doubtful if a person who has not lodged the complaint can be so prosecuted for lodging a false complaint under Section 182 IPC. I need not detain CRIMINAL MISC. M 9909 OF 2004 :{ 8 }:
myself on this aspect since I have otherwise held that this complaint is barred by limitation.
The present petition is accordingly allowed and the complaint and the subsequent proceedings held against the petitioner alone are hereby quashed. Needless to mention here that the interim order, staying proceedings would automatically come to an end with the disposal of this petition.
September 11,2008 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE