A complaint filed more than three years after separation of the couple would have to be held to be barred by limitation.

JUDGMENT

R.Raghunandan Rao, J. - Petitioners are Accused Nos.1 to 4 in C.C.No.567 of 2019 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet for offences under Sections 498-A, 509, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

2. The contents of the complaint and charge sheet are:

The de facto complainant and the 1st petitioner were married on 14.11.2013. Thereafter, they lived together in Vinukonda. The de facto complainant alleges that her husband-1st petitioner, her father-in-law-2nd petitioner, her mother-in-law-3rd petitioner and the sister of her husband, who is the 4th petitioner, had harassed her and mistreated her as if she was a maid servant in the house of her in-laws. The de facto complainant alleges that her husband had an inferiority complex as she was more educated than him. The harassment is said to have been carried out for the purpose of extracting money from her parents. The 1st petitioner's behavior did not change even after delivery of her son on 05.09.2015 and she was sent away to her matrimonial home and neither her husband nor any of her in-laws had bothered to look after her or her son. A specific allegation is made that the son of the de facto complainant had some problems in his testicles and no assistance was given to the de facto complainant for the treatment of her son. The complaint states that the said problem had to be solved by a surgery which was done with the help of her parents.

3. The de facto complainant also further alleges that the 1st petitioner, to create an image of a good husband had filed an application before the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet, for restitution of conjugal rights but did not pursue the matter, allowing the petition to be dismissed for default. The petitioners had also rejected the attempts of elders to resolve these issues and in such circumstances, the complaint is said to have been filed before the II Town Police Station, Narasaraopet where the complaint was registered as Crime No.120 of 2019 for offences under Sections 498-A, 506, 354 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

4. After investigation and recording the statements of various list witnesses, a charge sheet was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet as C.C.No.567 of 2019 for offences under Sections 498-A, 509, 5-6, 354 r/w 34 of I.P.C.

5. The petitioners have approached this Court, by way of the present criminal petition for quashing C.C.No.567 of 2019.

6. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the allegations in the complaint are false and have been made only for the purpose of arm twisting the petitioners into accepting her demands. He would further submit that the complaint could not have been entertained as it has been filed beyond the period of limitation set out under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the cognizance of the case itself is irregular and not in accordance with the requirements of law.

7. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti would also submit that the allegations made in the charge sheet as well as the depositions of the list of witnesses and the complainant do not make out any of the offences mentioned in the charge sheet.

8. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti would point out that the complaint was initially registered for offences under Sections 498-A, 354, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The charge sheet was filed invoking Section 498-A, 509, 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. That is offences under Section 354 of I.P.C were dropped and an additional provision namely, Section 509 of I.P.C was included in the charge sheet. However, the note put up before the trial Court, by it's office, stated that the charge sheet was filed for offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 354 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. A proforma stamped order of cognizance recorded that the case was being taken on file under Section 498-A, 354 and 506 r/w 34 of I.P.C. The said order of cognizance, apart from being bereft of any reasons disclosing satisfaction of the Magistrate is also defective on