Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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.

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:-

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.