RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Naveen Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 39 of 2021
Decided On : 27-07-2021
Criminal - Cognizance - Section 482 Cr.P.C., Section 468 Cr.P.C. - The court interpreted the provisions regarding limitation for cognizance of offences and the nature of matrimonial offences as continuous, influencing the dismissal of the petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the cognizance taken against him for offences under IPC sections, claiming it was barred by limitation as per Section 468 Cr.P.C. The petitioner argued that the allegations were false and the complaint was filed after the limitation period.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations constituted a continuous offence, thus the limitation period did not apply as argued by the petitioner. The court upheld the lower courts' decisions.
Issues: Whether the cognizance taken against the petitioner was barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and whether the allegations constituted a continuous offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that matrimonial offences can be considered continuous, allowing for cognizance to be taken even after the typical limitation period.
Result: The petition is dismissed.
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:
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.
AI
Matrimonial offences can be treated as continuous, allowing for cognizance beyond the standard limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
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 cas....
Point of Law : Language of Section 468(3) makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved.
The court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to discharge accused persons of certain offences based on a compromise and the non-compoundable nature of the remaining offences.
The court established that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked to quash FIRs when a compromise is reached and verified, aligning with the principles set forth in Gian Singh Vs. S....
The court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR and proceedings based on a compromise between the parties, in line with the decision in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab ....
The court affirmed that once an investigation is completed and a negative final report is submitted, it will not exercise its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to order a fresh investigation.
The limitation period for filing a Final Report under IPC offences is three years, and failure to comply bars prosecutorial actions.
The court has the authority to quash FIRs and proceedings in criminal cases when a compromise is reached between the parties, reflecting the judicial inclination towards resolving disputes amicably.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.