The main legal point established is that allegations reflecting a continuous offence may not be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., and the court's inherent jurisdiction may not be invoked in such cases.

JUDGMENT

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In wake of second surge in the COVID-19 cases, abundant caution is being maintained, while hearing the matters in Court, for the safety of all concerned.

2. This criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this misc. petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed and impugned orders dated 18.11.2020 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sirohi in Criminal Revision No.24/2018 (C.I.S. No.24/2018) titled as Naveen Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan as well as dated 30.04.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sirohi in Criminal Original Case No.280/2016 titled as State of Rajasthan Vs. Naveen Kumar may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed as prayed for .

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cognizance against the present petitioner has been taken by the learned court below unlawfully, as the allegations contained in the written report dated 01.06.2016 submitted before the SHO, Police Station, Mahila Thana, District Sirohi regarding the offences under Sections 498-A, 406 & 323 IPC, are not correct.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that after investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the present petitioner under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC before the learned trial court on 05.09.2016, and the cognizance was taken by the learned trial court on the same day.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that thereafter, the petitioner moved an application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. before the learned trial court, while alleging that the complainant had come to her parents house for delivery in the month of February 2013, and thereafter, she gave birth to a female child on 13.03.2013, and since then, she was residing at her parents house. Learned counsel further submitted that the maximum period of limitation for taking cognizance under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC is three years, as per the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C.; however, after expiry of the said period of limitation, the present false report has been instituted, even when it was barred by limitation.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner thus, submitted that the learned trial court has wrongly declined to entertain the application under Section 468 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner.

7. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Amarendu Jyoti & Ors. Vs. State of Chhatisgarh & Ors.,2014 6 SCC(Cri) 719; and the judgments rendered by this Hon ble Court in Manish Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr, (2015) 4 CriCC 375 (Raj.) and; Smt. Sharmishtha Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.491/2009, decided on 05.04.2013).

8. On the other hand, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant oppose the petition.

9. Learned Public Prosecutor submits that it was a continuous offence, and therefore, there is no question of any interference by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent-complainant relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arun Vyas Vs. Anita Vyas, (1999) LawSuit(SC) 637.

11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the matrimonial offence, as narrated in the FIR, reflects a continuous offence, and therefore, the impugned orders have been rightly passed by the learned courts below.

12. The judgments cited at Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner do not apply in the present case.

13. In view of the above, no case is made out for making any interference by this Court under the inherent jurisdiction of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

14. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications also stand dismissed.