Delhi District Court
Sh. Harish Bindal vs The State Of Nct Of Delhi on 31 January, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. VIRENDER KUMAR GOYAL
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE: FAST TRACK COURT
ROHINI:DELHI
Criminal Revision No. 58/11
Unique case ID No. 02404R0186082011
Sh. Harish Bindal
S/o Sh. Nunia Mal
R/o Kath Mandi, Hissar.
.....Petitioner
Versus
The State of NCT of Delhi
.....Respondent
Date of institution of the case : 19/07/2011
Arguments heard on : 25/01/2012
Date of Decision : 31/01/2012
O R D E R
1. This is a revision petition u/s 399 Cr.P.C. against the order of the Ld. Trial Court passed on 07/05/2011 charging the revisionist u/s 498A IPC.
2. In brief, the facts are that the chargesheet was filed u/s 498A/406/34 IPC against the present revisionist alongwith one Tarun Jindal and vide order dated 07/05/2011, Ld. Trial Court found that prima facie offence u/s 498A of IPC is made out against the revisionist Harish Jindal only. CR No. 58/11 1/6
3. The impugned order has been challenged by the revisionist on various grounds. Firstly, that the revisionist never conceded about the charge and further the cognizance taken by the Ld. Trial Court was barred by limitation. It is further contended that the complaint dated 05/05/2005, on which this case FIR was registered, is not disclosing any prima facie offence u/s 498A of IPC. It is further contended that the Ld. Trial Court failed to take notice of other proceedings filed by the revisionist i.e. complaint u/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against father of the complainant, which shows the motive of the complainant to falsely implicate the revisionist in this case. It is further contended that during investigation, the Investigating Agency has not been able to bring on record any material to substantiate the contents of the complaint dated 05/05/2005 and the allegations made in the complaint by the wife of the revisionist are highly unbelievable.
4. It is further contended that during the proceedings of revision petition, complainant herself gave an application dated 07/09/2011 wherein, she specifically alleged that the revisionist never demanded dowry nor she made any such complaint and her complaint was misunderstood by the Police and Police wrongly registered the case and filed the chargesheet. So the cognizance u/s 498A IPC need not taken against the revisionist.
5. I have heard the revisionist in person, Ld. Counsel for the complainant and Ld. APP for the State and have gone through the Trial Court Record. During the proceedings, written submissions have also been filed on CR No. 58/11 2/6 behalf of the complainant.
6. The first and foremost question is to see whether the cognizance taken is barred by limitation.
7. The complaint on which this case has been registered is dated 05/05/2005 whereas, the incident has been stated to be of 04/08/2002. Copies of other complaints also on record dated 10/02/2005, 04/05/2005, 12/05/2005, 14/05/2005 and 25/05/2005 but these all are of similar nature.
8. On the complaint dated 05/05/2005, case was registered u/s 498A/406 IPC and on 02/07/2005, chargesheet was filed on 22/03/2008 but cognizance was taken on 14/01/2009 by the Ld. Trial Court.
9. According to Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the period of limitation is 3 years if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding 3 years.
10. In this case, the chargesheet has been filed u/s 498A/406 IPC. Both the Sections are punishable with imprisonment of 3 years so the limitation according to Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is 3 years for each/both the offences.
11. According to Section 469, the period of limitation in relation to an offence shall commence on the date of offence and according to complaint CR No. 58/11 3/6 dated 05/05/2005 the date of occurrence as mentioned therein is 04/08/2002 so the FIR was registered at the end of 3 years from 04/08/2002 and chargesheet was filed on 22/03/2008, so if we consider the date of offence as 04/08/2002 then the filing of chargesheet even on 22/03/2008 was barred by limitation. The identity of the accused is not in disputed as accused is husband of the complainant. No other specific date has been given, which can be counted lastly for any such incident related to Section 498A or Section 406 of IPC as in other complaints also, date of 04/08/2002 has been given repeatedly and even the prosecution has relied upon the medical examination of the complainant dated 04/08/2002, which according to the case of the prosecution substantiating the allegations of the complainant that she was beaten by the revisionist and he demanded Rs. 25 to 30 lacs and to transfer the house in his name.
12. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has relied upon AIR 2005 SC 1989 titled as Ramesh Vs. State of Tamil Nadu in which it has been held that :
"What the Court has to see is "interest of justice".
The interest of justice demands that the Court should protect the oppressed and punish the oppressor/offender. In complaints under Section 498A the wife will invariably be oppressed, having been subjected to cruelty by the husband and the in laws. It is, therefore, appropriate for the Courts, in case of delayed complaints, to construe liberally Section 473 Cr. P. C. in favour of a wife who is subjected to cruelty if on the facts and in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. When the conduct of the accused is such that applying the rule of limitation CR No. 58/11 4/6 will give an unfair advantage to him to result in miscarriage of justice, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation in the interest of justice."
13. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has contended that in view of the judgment, if the cognizance to be argued as barred by limitation, then the lenient view be taken and it is to be held that the cognizance was within the period of limitation.
14. The settled proposition of law as argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant is not in dispute but there is a specific provision to extend the period of limitation in certain cases according to Section 473 of Cr.P.C. Court can take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.
15. The order dated 22/03/2008 is not explanatory about cognizance rather cognizance was taken by the Ld. Trial Court on 14/01/2009 and in that order nothing has been mentioned about the fact that cognizance was taken after extending the period of limitation on the facts and circumstances or that the delay has been properly explained or that it is in the interest of justice so unless and until the Ld. Trial Court reached at such conclusion, it can not be said that cognizance was taken after extending the period of limitation or was otherwise withing period of limitation.
CR No. 58/11 5/6
16. In such circumstances, the very root of the case is in dispute, hence, the impugned order dated 07/05/2011 is not sustainable in the eyes of law until and unless it is decided by the Ld. Trial Court as to whether cognizance was taken after extending the period of limitation in this case or was otherwise within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 07/05/52011 is hereby set aside and the Ld. Trial Court is directed to first decide whether the cognizance taken is barred by limitation or the same has been extended for the purpose of taking cognizance of the offence or otherwise it was within the period of limitation.
17. In view of above, revision petition is disposed off accordingly without any observation on the remaining points argued before this Court as to whether offence u/s 498A is prima facie made out or not.
18. Parties are directed to appear before the Ld. Trial Court on 02/02/2012. Trial Court Record File be sent back with the copy of the order to the Ld. Trial Court. Revision filed be consigned to RecordRoom. Announced in Open Court on this 31st day of January, 2012 (Virender Kumar Goyal) Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court Rohini : Delhi CR No. 58/11 6/6