JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Ms. Nehala Sharmin, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Jitendra Nath Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

2. This petition has been filed for quashing the entire criminal proceeding arising out of C1 Case No.29 of 2010 including the order dated 08.04.2010 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur, whereby, cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 342, 384, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, now pending in the court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur. Vide order dated 03.02.2023, I.A. No.251 of 2023 was allowed by the coordinate Bench of this Court and by the said order, the order dated 22.11.2022 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamshedpur on the petition filed by the petitioners under Section 245(1) Cr.P.C. in C1 Case No.29 of 2010 was allowed to be challenged in this petition and interim order was granted.

3. The complaint case was filed by opposite party no.2 alleging therein that the complainant had given his house located at holding no.31, Khasmahal on rent to the accused Sunil Singh in April, 2004 for which an agreement was prepared. Since the accused Sunil Singh stopped payment of rent since July, 2004 and then on 01.11.2004, the complainant went to realise the due rent. On demand, the accused persons became furious and started abusing and assaulting the complainant with fist and slaps. Thereafter, the accused persons took the complainant in the room and confined him. After 3 hours the accused persons came and forcibly took his signature on blank papers on the point of pistol. On 20.12.2009, the complainant came to know that the accused persons have misused the said papers and prepared a deed of mortgage and agreement for sale and a money receipt and has filed a writ application bearing no. W.P.(C) No.2725 of 2007 in this Court and got the stay order for their personal benefit and thereby cheated the complainant in grabbing his house.

4. Mr. Jitendra Shankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the alleged occurrence was taken place on 01.11.2004, whereas, the complaint case has been filed on 05.01.2010. He further submits that cognizance has been taken against the petitioners under Sections 323, 341, 342, 384, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to him, sentence under Section 323 IPC is one year, under Section 341 IPC is one month, under Section 342 IPC is one year and under Section 384 IPC is three years. He submits that in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C, if maximum punishment is of three years, the complaint case is required to be filed within three years, whereas, in the case in hand, the complaint case has been filed on 05.01.2010 i.e. after approximately five years and two months of the alleged occurrence. He also submits that the learned court has taken cognizance under these Sections only. There is no cognizance order under Section 415 or 420 of IPC. He submits that the case of the petitioners is fully covered in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty; [(2007) 7 SCC 394]. He relied upon paragraph 52 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below:

“52. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the relevant date must be considered as the date of filing of complaint or initiating criminal proceedings and not the date of taking cognizance by a Magistrate or issuance of process by a court. We, therefore, overrule all decisions in which it has been held that the crucial date for computing the period of limitation is taking of cognizance by the Magistrate/court and not of filing of complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings.”

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further relied on the same line in Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni & others; [2022 (3) JCR (SC) 76]. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted