The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity for a speaking order indicating the satisfaction of the court for condoning the delay in the interest of justice, as per the provisions of section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

RANJIT MORE, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Since controversy involved in the petition is in narrow compass, by consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. Heard Mr. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Saste, learned APP for the State and Mr. Suradkar, Respondent No. 2 in person.

3. The petition is filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings of CC No. 73/PS/14 pending on the file of 25th Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai.

4. The case of the Petitioner is as under:-

That, on 28th November 2006, a defamatory article with the Petitioner's photograph was published in the morning edition of Mumbai Mirror. In the said article, the Petitioner is lebelled as extortionist and most litigious who is alleged to have filed 182 cases against high profile persons including the topmost police officers. The Petitioner thereafter on 6th March 2007, having got information of the said article from the friends and relatives filed private complaint against the said newspaper, its editor, reporter and publishers in the Court of 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Mazgaon, Mumbai for the offence punishable under sections 329, 382, 465, 466, 469, 500, 502 and 501 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which is numbered as Case No. 22/Misc/2007. In this complaint, the Petitioner as well as three witnesses, namely, Dinesh Anilkumar Kanbhar, Jatin Anilkumar Kanbhar and Vipul Kanbhar have been examined. The said case is still pending.

That, on the basis of 2nd respondent's report dated 17th October 2013, Byculla Police Station on 22nd October 2013 registered an FIR against the Petitioner for the offence punishable under section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This FIR is registered on the basis of the averment made by the Petitioner in his private complaint filed before 17th MM Court Mazgaon being CC No. 22/Misc/2007 wherein in paragraph 3 of the said complaint, the Petitioner has stated that then found out a domestic knife put on his neck and cut off it and commit suicide, his nephews snatched the knife and tried to save him from grievous injuries. It is further alleged that witnesses Dinesh, Jatin and Vipul also deposed in support of the complaint filed by the Petitioner and stated that their uncle was to cut the veins of his hands. After completion of investigation, on 23rd October 2010 charge-sheet was filed by the police in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 25th Court, Mazgaon, Mumbai. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence on the day of filing of charge-sheet.

5. The Petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the proceedings of this case mainly on the ground that learned Metropolitan Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offence as the charge-sheet is filed after the lapse of the period of limitation. In this regard, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied upon the provisions of sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the Code) as well as decision of the Delhi High Court in Saregama India Limited vs. State NCT of Delhi.

6. Learned APP for the State and Respondent No. 2 inperson did not seriously dispute that cognizance of the offence is taken by the Magistrate after the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 of the Code. However they strongly relied upon the provisions of section 473 of the Code to submit that the delay can always be condoned by the Magistrate even after the expiry of period of limitation. They relied upon the decision of Apex Court in Sukhdev Raj vs. State of Punjab, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 398.

7. Having gone through the petition, charge-sheet which is sought to be quashed and set aside by this petition and having considered the rival submissions advanced by both sides, we find merit in the petition. Admittedly, the subj