JUDGMENT :

Rajnesh Oswal, J.-In the present petition, petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Court of District Judicial Mobile Magistrate (Traffic), Kathua (hereinafter referred to as the trial court) whereby the cognizance was taken by the learned Trial Court and also for quashing the order dated 20.04.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court, whereby the process has been issued against the petitioner and further for quashing of the proceedings in the criminal complaint, titled, ‘Dutt Kumar Vs. Pardeep Khajuria & Ors.’, on the following grounds:

(a) That the learned Trial Court was pleased to pass order dated 12.05.2016, whereby cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate and vide order dated 20.04.2017, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the offence under section 323 IPC was made out against the petitioner. As per the provisions contained in section 538-B Cr.P.C, no court can take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section 2 after the expiry of the period of limitation and period of taking the cognizance is one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, therefore, the learned Magistrate in the instant case was competent to take cognizance within a period of one year from the date of alleged occurrence i.e. 07.03.2015, but has taken the cognizance on 12.05.2016 i.e. after the expiry of one year from the date of occurrence, as such, the order impugned is per se illegal.

(b) That as per the contents of the complainant, the offence is alleged to have been committed when the petitioner was discharging his official duties being a police officer at the time of commission of alleged offence, thus, the Magistrate was under a statutory duty to comply with the Rules 16 and 17 of chapter XIII of the Rules framed for the guidance of Criminal Courts subordinate to the Hon’ble High Court, read with Police Rule 349, but the trial court while passing the order impugned has not complied with the aforesaid Rules, thus, it is established that the orders impugned neither were passed with the application of mind nor the same were passed in consonance with the law.

(c) That it is apparent from the order dated 20.04.2017 that the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate without taking cognizance of the offence was pleased to refer the complaint to Additional Superintendent of Police for enquiry at pre-cognizance stage and the Additional Superintendent of Police had submitted a report to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate indicating therein that the allegations made in the complaint were false and not based on facts. The learned Magistrate has not considered the report of the Senior Police Officer and passed the order dated 12.05.2016 taking the cognizance of the offence contrary to the provisions of law.

(d) That the bare perusal of the allegations made in the complaint even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not even constitute an offence or make out a case against the petitioner. Further that the respondent has tried to implicate the petitioner in a false complaint so that he may succeed in pressurising the petitioner for getting the Police case registered against the respondent and his associate, compounded/compromised from the complainant of the said case, thus the impugned criminal proceedings have been instituted with an ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance upon the petitioner.

2. Mr. Rakesh Chargotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order of taking cognizance is hopelessly barred by limitation as provided by section 538-B Cr.P.C. and further that Police Rule 349 specifically provides for the procedure with regard to the commission of offences by the Police Officers while discharging their official duties and further that the complaint was filed by the respondent in order to wreck vengeance upon the petitioner.

3. Mr. Sachin Sharma, learned counsel