IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.871/2014 BETWEEN:
DR. S.N. MOTHI S/O SRI DR. NARAYAN RAO 60 YEARS NO.168, 10TH CROSS GOKULAM 3RD STAGE MYSORE-570 002. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI S.G. BHAGAVAN, ADV.) AND:
RAMESH S/O SWAMY RAO MAJOR NO.1254, L.I.G.NO.1 4TH STAGE, KALYANAGIRI MYSORE-570 001. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI PRUTHVI WODEYAR, ADV.) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.96/2013 ON THE FILE OF II J.M.F.C, MYSORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner is a Doctor. He is said to have given treatment to complainant’s son. According to the complainant, petitioner had treated complainant’s son on 18.05.1992. Complainant issued a legal notice on 13.06.2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay compensation for wrongly treating his son, which had resulted in blindness. On 15.12.2003 complainant gave a complaint to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Mysore, which was later registered as Crime No.214/2004 for offences punishable under Sections 338 and 406 of IPC. Police after investigation have filed ‘B’ report. Complainant filed the protest petition. By order dated 02.03.2013, learned Magistrate took cognizance and issued process. The said order is called in question in this petition.
2. Heard Sri S. G. Bhagavan, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned Advocate for the respondent.
3. Sri S.G. Bhagavan contended that the offences alleged against the petitioner are punishable under Sections 338 and 406 of IPC. Between the two offences, the maximum punishment is three years or fine or with both for Section 406 of IPC. He submitted that Section 468 of Cr.P.C. places an embargo on the Court from taking cognizance beyond the period of limitation prescribed therein. Under Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C the limitation prescribed is three years to take cognizance in respect of an offence, which is punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year, but not exceeding three years. In the instant case, maximum period of punishment is three years. Admittedly, FIR has been registered in the year 2004, after a lapse of 12 years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have issued process.
4. Sri Pruthvi Wodeyar, learned Advocate argued in support of the impugned order.
5. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the records.
6. The undisputed facts of this case are that the petitioner is alleged to have given treatment to the complainant’s son on 18.05.1992 and FIR is registered in the year 2004.
7. Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as follows :-
“Section 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 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.
[(3) 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.]”
(emphasis supplied) 8. Between the two alleged offences, Section 406 of IPC is punishable with higher punishment of three years imprisonment or fine or with both. As per Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C., the period of limitation is three years. Admittedly in this case, FIR is registered after twelve years. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is unsustainable in law.
9. Resultantly, this petition merits consideration and it is accordingly allowed. All proceedings in C.C.No.96/2013 on the file of II J.M.F.C., Mysore, are quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE NG* CT: bms