Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 384 indian penal code in Gulab Singh vs The State Of Jharkhand on 27 March, 2023Matching Fragments
4. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged occurrence was taken place on 01.11.2004, whereas, the complaint case has been filed on 05.01.2010. He further submits that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 342, 384, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, sentence under Section 323 IPC is one year, under Section 341 IPC is one month, under Section 342 IPC is one year and under Section 384 IPC is three years. He submits that in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C, if maximum punishment is of three years, the complaint case is required to be filed within three years, whereas, in the case in hand, the complaint case has been filed on 05.01.2010 i.e. after approximately five years and two months of the alleged occurrence. He also submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under these Sections only. There is no cognizance order under Section 415 or 420 of IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty; [(2007) 7 SCC 394] . He relied upon paragraph 52 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below:
8. In view of the above submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the Court has gone through the materials on record and finds that admittedly alleged occurrence took place on 01.11.2004, whereas, the complaint case has been filed on 05.01.2010. The learned court has taken cognizance against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 342, 384, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The sentence under Section 323 IPC is one year, under Section 341 IPC is one month, under Section 342 IPC is one year and under Section 384 IPC is three years. If maximum punishment is of three years, the complaint case is required to be filed within three years in view of Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. For correct appreciation, Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. is quoted herein below:
9. Looking to the aforesaid provision of Cr.P.C., it transpires that the complaint case is required to be filed within three years. The sentence for offence under Section 384 of IPC is three years and for rest of the offence, the punishment are lesser. The record suggests that the writ petition was filed by the co-accused pursuant the notice issued to the co-accused for vacating the plot in question. The said writ petition was dismissed for default, as submitted by Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners. Thus, it prima facie appears that for vacating the house, criminal case has been filed. It further fortifies the case of the petitioners considering that for civil wrong, criminal case has been filed. The argument of Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 is not accepted by this Court considering that the learned counsel has not taken cognizance under any of section of cheating under IPC. The cognizance has been taken only under Sections 323, 341, 342, 384, 34 of IPC and the allegation of those sections are of the year 2004, whereas, the complaint case has been filed in the year 2010. Further the learned trial court has dismissed the discharge petition filed by the petitioners on the ground that only grave suspicion is there to frame charge.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and analysis and considering that no cognizance has been taken under any of the cheating sections of IPC and cognizance has been taken only under Sections 323, 341, 342, 384, 34 of IPC and only under Section 384 IPC, the sentence is of three years and for other offences, the punishment is lesser and considering that the complaint case has been filed in the year 2010 whereas the alleged occurrence is of the year 2004 and in view of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo and Amritlal (supra), the case of the petitioners is fully covered. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.29 of 2010 including the order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur and the order dated 22.11.2022 passed in C1 Case No.29 of 2010 by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, now pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur are, hereby, quashed.