Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kuldip Kaur vs State Of Punjab & Another on 22 March, 2013
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Criminal Misc.No.-M 8738 of 2013 (O&M) :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: March 22, 2013
Kuldip Kaur .....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab & 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.Avnish Mittal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
At the instance of respondent No.2, FIR under Sections 452 and 380 IPC was registered against the petitioner on 8.7.2006. The petitioner along with her family members were arrested in the said case. Husband of the petitioner submitted an application for proper enquiry in the said FIR and thereafter the police found that the FIR was based on false information. Cancellation report was accordingly submitted on 23.5.2007. The Magistrate issued direction for conducting further investigation into the matter. Even thereafter the police concluded that the FIR was registered on the false allegations. Cancellation report was again prepared, which was accepted on 29.4.2011.
Criminal Misc.No.-M 8738 of 2013 (O&M) :2 :
The petitioner then moved an application for initiating proceedings under Section 182 IPC against respondent No.2. Complaint was accordingly filed against respondent No.2 on 15.11.2011. This complaint was dismissed by JMIC on 3.9.2012 on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The petitioner filed a revision against the same, which is dismissed on 18.2.2012. The petitioner, thus, has filed the present petition to challenge both the orders passed by JMIC and the Addl.Sessions Judge, Mohali dismissing the revision against the said order.
The respondent Jagdip Kaur has challenged the complaint on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The maximum imprisonment proved under Section 182 IPC is six months and as such limitation to file this complaint was one year from the date when the allegations were found to be false. The plea of the petitioner, however, is that cancellation report was finally accepted on 29.4.2011 and, thus, the complaint under Section 182 IPC would be within limitation.
In support of her plea, respondent No.2 has relied upon Harbhajan Singh Bajwa Versus SSP, Patiala, 2000 Crl.L.J. 3297. It is observed in this case that the authority should file the complaint under Section 182 IPC within one year from the date when the said authority found that the allegations made in the complaint were false. It is observed that the offence under Section 182 IPC would be complete when the complaint was found to be false. Thus, it is held that starting point for the purpose of limitation would be when the investigating agency concludes that the investigations were false. Criminal Misc.No.-M 8738 of 2013 (O&M) :3 : The acceptance of cancellation report will not extend the limitation.
The plea of the petitioner, however, is that police could not have initiated proceedings under Section 182 IPC till the acceptance of said report by the Magistrate. In this regard, reference is made to the case of Babita Versus State of Punjab and another, 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 516. In this case, the proceedings initiated under Section 182 IPC were dismissed on the ground of being premature as cancellation report has not been accepted by the learned Illaqa Magistrate. The counsel for the petitioner has urged on the basis of this judgment that complaint could not have been filed prior to the acceptance of the cancellation report and so the limitation would start running only from the date of acceptance of the cancellation report.
The Revisional Court considered the submissions so made, but has referred to Gammi alias Gama Versus State of Punjab and another, 2009(2) RCR (Criminal) 1, where it is observed that the cancellation report was filed before the court on 15.4.2001 and, thus, by the said date it was in the knowledge of police that FIR registered by or at the behest of the petitioner therein was false. This was further found to be false when the complaint in this regard under Section 182 IPC was filed on 12.8.2003. The court took notice of the same on 25.8.2003. It is so observed that by 25.8.2003, the offence as well as the offenders were known. The court in this case has further held that offence actually was committed when the false FIR was filed on 2.2.2001. By 15.4.2001, the offence and the offenders were known. The complaint, thus, could be filed within one year from Criminal Misc.No.-M 8738 of 2013 (O&M) :4 : 15.4.2001, but was filed only on 12.8.2003. Accordingly, it was held that the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. had expired on 25.8.2003 when the Magistrate took cognizance of the offence.
In Babita's case (supra), the court was not considering the plea of limitation and Calendra in this case presented under the signatures of SHO was quashed as the complaint in writing could be made by SSP and not SHO. It is also observed that SHO cannot initiate proceedings under Section 182 IPC till the court has expressed its opinion about the falsity of the complaint. Thus, the issue in the case of Babita (supra) is different and would not apply to the facts of the present case. The present case apparently is covered by the ratio of law laid down in Harbhajan Singh Bajwa's case (supra). Once the cancellation report was prepared on 23.5.2007 and was presented before the Magistrate, which issued direction for further investigation, but the allegations were found to be false when another cancellation report was submitted on 18.11.2009. The complaint under Section 182 IPC was filed on 15.11.2011. The cancellation report having been prepared on 18.11.2009 would clearly show that the offence and the offenders were known by this date and the complaint under Section 182 IPC filed on 15.11.2011 would be barred by limitation.
There is no merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
March 22, 2013 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE