THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
Crl.P.No.978 of 2008
Date of Order: 01-07-2010 Between:
1. Mokara Appal Raju and others and 1. The State of A.P., Bhimili P.S., Visakhapatnam Dist. Rep. by P.P.
..Petitioners ..Respondents The Court made the following Order:
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY
Crl.P.No.978 of 2008
Oral order:
This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is to quash the proceedings pending on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate, Bhimunipatnam in Cr.No.41 of 2003 of Padmanabham Police Station taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioners 1 to 17 under Sections 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC in Crl.M.P.No.223 of 2008 dated 18-01-
2008.
On filing a complaint on 25-07-2003 a case in Cr.No.41 of 2003 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324, 325, 506 (2) r/w 34 IPC. Thereafter, the Inspector of Police, Bheemunipatnam after due investigation into the said crime filed a final report treating the case as “mistake of fact” on 12-08-2004. On issuing a notice under Section 62 Cr.P.C. on 20-10-2003 about filing of the report, the de-facto complainant filed protest petition under Section 190(1) Cr.P.C. on 11-01-2008.
The learned Metropolitan Magistrate by the impugned order took cognizance of the offence on 18-01-2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 324 r/w 149 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused contends that for the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC the punishment is with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence beyond three years. Admittedly the alleged incident took place on 25-07-2003. Therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.
To buttress his submission reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in KIMBERLY CLARK LIVER LIMITED MAHARASHTRA v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH[1] and the judgment of the Supreme Court in KRISHNA PILLAI v. T.A.RAJENDRAN[2].
Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/complainant contends that a counter case is registered in Cr.No.42 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 323 324,307,506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC for which charge sheet has been filed and pending for trial in S.C.No.43 of 2005 on the file of IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC) Visakhapatnam, and the present C.C.No.40 of 2008 arises out of Cr.No.41 of 2003 was transferred to be tried along with S.C.No.43 of 2005 in Tr.Crl.M.P.1450 of 2008 by the District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam for joint trial. Therefore, the proceedings in Cr.No.41 of 2003 should not be quashed.
Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance after expiry of the period of limitation. The period of limitation for the offence punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years is three (3) years.
Section 469 Cr.P.C. prescribes commencement of the period of limitation. The period of limitation shall commence on the date of the offence.
Admittedly, for the offence, which has been taken place on 25-07-2003, cognizance was taken on 18-01-2008 beyond four years six months after the date of offence, which the Magistrate cannot take cognizance. Therefore, the proceedings in C.C.No.40 of 2008, which arises out of Cr.No.41 of 2003 dated 25-07-2003 on the file of Padmanabham Police Station, transferred to the IX Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Visakhapatnam in Tr.Crl.M.P.No.1450 of 2008 to be tried along with S.C.No.43 of 2003 are quashed.
The Criminal Petition is accordingly allowed.
A.GOPAL REDDY, J.
01-07-2010 Murthy
[1] 2006 ALT (Crl.) (2) 261 = 2007 ALD (Crl.) (1) 903
[2] 1990 (SUPP) SCC 121