Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Vs.
Mumtaz Ali - Respondent
Criminal Revision No. 145 of 1997
Decided On : 08-08-2017
498A IPC - Limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. - The court found that the complaint of dowry harassment was time-barred due to limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and refused to take cognizance of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant alleged dowry harassment 10-12 years before approaching the Police Authorities. The learned Magistrate found the case time-barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and refused to take cognizance.
Finding of the Court:
The court analyzed the complainant's statement and found that the offense of dowry harassment was time-barred. The court also dismissed the revision petition stating that the offense punishable under Section 498A IPC is not a continuous offense.
Issues: Limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973, and the nature of the offense punishable under Section 498A IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973, and the finding that the offense under Section 498A IPC is not a continuous offense.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
As per the statement made by the complainant alleging dowry harassment she stated that 10-12 years before the date when she approached the Police Authorities she had returned to her parental house. On the basis of the statement FIR for an offence punishable under Section 498A IPC was registered.
2. With reference to Section 468 Cr.P.C., 1973 the learned Magistrate has rightly returned the finding that it was a case where limitation came in the way. The learned Magistrate has refused to take cognizance.
3. I have perused the statement of the complainant. As per her statement she had left the house of her in laws 10-12 years back.
4. In the revision petition it is stated that the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC is continuous offence.
5. It is not so.
6. I have perused the statement made by the lady. She does not talk of any illegal detention of her property. On her statement no offence is made out under Section 406 IPC.
7. The petition is dismissed.
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
