The court affirmed that criminal breach of trust regarding stridhan is a continuing offence, allowing for cognizance to be taken within the statutory limitation, restarting with each demand.

JUDGMENT :

Pranjal Das, J.

Heard Mr. D. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.N. Mukherjee, learned counsel for the respondent No.2/informant.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS against the impugned order dated 03.05.2024 passed by the learned Sub- Divisional Judicial Magistrate (S), Bongaigaon in connection with C.R. Case No. 66/2023 under Section 406 of IPC, by issuing summons to the accused petitioner.

3. The respondent complainant, Riyanka Sharma, who is married to the accused petitioner herein, namely, Shankar Deo Sharma had filed a complaint case being Complaint Case No. 66/2023 under Section 406/420 IPC regarding non-return of Stridhan property which was listed in paragraph 9 of the complaint petition.

4. In support of the complaint, the complainant, thereafter, was examined by the learned trial court, being the court of learned SDJM(S), Bongaigaon. Along with the initial deposition of the complainant, two more witnesses were examined by the learned trial court as CW1 and CW2, who were the mother and aunt respectively, of the respondent/complainant. Thereafter, the learned court below vide order dated 03-05-2024 was pleased to take cognizance against the petitioner under section 406 IPC and summons were issued.

5. A scanned copy of the TCR was called for but the same is not yet received. However, both the learned counsel fairly submit that as the relevant documents are annexed with the petition, they are agreeable to disposal of the matter on the basis of the available materials.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his primary contention is that the impugned order dated 03-05-2024 passed in CR Case No. 66/2023 is bad in law as it is violative of section 468 CrPC (as it existed then) pertaining to limitation period with regard to offences. It is submitted that with regard to the offence in question i.e. section 406 IPC, the prescribed limitation period, in terms of section 468 CrPC would be three years. The learned counsel has drawn attention to a complaint filed by the complainant herein under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hearing after ‘DV Act’) resulting in DV Case No. 3/2020. Drawing attention to the relevant para, it is submitted that the complainant in the said petition under section 12 of the DV Act makes allegations of being harassed and assaulted by the respondents therein and ousting of the complainant along with her child from the matrimonial house on 6-12-2019. It is also stated that the respondents in the DV proceeding kept the stridhan (gold bangles, gold ring, gold chain, gold ear rings and clothing’s) belonging to the complainant worth Rs. 2,00,000/-.

7. The learned counsel has also drawn attention to the statement in para 3 (vii), where the complainant as the aggrieved person sought a direction to the respondents to hand over the household articles, ornaments and furniture etc. to her. It is submitted that the said DV proceeding was filed on 21-01-2020 and taking that as the starting point of limitation, the order dated 03-05-2024 taking cognizance was clearly beyond the stipulated limitation period of 3 years under section 468 CrPC.

8. In these facts and circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeking interference with the impugned order and submits that the said order of taking cognizance having been passed beyond the period of limitation, is