The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of Section 195(1)(b) of the Code and Section 468, which led to the quashing of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Bivas Pattanayak, J. - This revisional application has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') for quashing of the proceeding being case no.AC-2692 of 2014 under Sections 500/211 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') pending before Learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South).

2.The brief fact of the case is as follows.

(i) The petitioner as an authorized representative and president of M/s Swapnakalpa, a society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1961, filed a complaint in court against opposite party being AC No. 180 of 2008 under Sections 427/448/504/506 of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) The opposite party was acquitted of the charges labelled against her under Section 255(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the aforesaid proceeding by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) on 28.02.2014.

(iii) Thereafter on being acquitted the opposite party on 25.08.2014 filed a complaint case being case no.AC-2692 of 2014 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, 24-Parganas (South) against the petitioner under Section 500 read with Section 211 of IPC and the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, took cognizance of such offence and transferred the case to the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, at Alipore for enquiry and disposal.

(iv)The learned trial Magistrate upon examination of opposite party- complainant under Section 200 of the Code issued summons upon the petitioner in respect of offence under Sections 500/211 of the Indian Penal Code.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with such proceeding the petitioner has preferred the present revision.

4. In spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of opposite partycomplainant.

5.Mr. Sandipan Ganguly, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner strenuously disputed the cognizance taken by the trial court and issuance of process thereon against the petitioner-accused under Section 500 read with Section 211 of the Indian Penal Code on two fold grounds. Firstly, the allegation with regard to section 211 of IPC made in the petition of complaint relates to a court proceeding and as per provisions contained in section 195(1)(b) of the Code a Magistrate can take cognizance of such offence only on a complaint in writing of that court or by such officer of the court duly authorized in writing in this behalf or of some other court to which that court is subordinate and not by any private complainant. Secondly, the cognizance taken in respect of offence under Section 500 of IPC is barred by limitation inasmuch as the allegations in the complaint relates to period before 22nd December, 2007 till the judgment was pronounced on 28.02.2014 in earlier complaint case no. AC no. 180 of 2008 filed by the petitioner and in terms of Section 468 sub-clause (2) of the Code, cognizance of the such offence can only be taken within a period of three years from the date of filing of the earlier complaint at the instance of the petitioner and not from the date of knowledge of the opposite party-complainant or from the date of disposal of the earlier complaint. The petitioner filed the earlier complaint case being no. AC 180 in the year 2008.The instant complaint has been filed by the opposite party- complainant in the year 2014. Thus after a lapse of almost six (6) years the opposite party-complainant filed the instant complaint, which is beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Code for such offences and hence it was not at all permissible for the Magistrate to take cognizance of such offence after the expiry of the prescribed period. He has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Surinder Mohan Vikal versus Ascharaj Lal Chopra, (1978) 2 SCC 403 and of Madras High Court passed in P.M Kathiresan versus Shanmugham, Reti