The crucial date for calculating the period of limitation is the date of re-submission of the final report, and a petition for discharge in a summons case is not maintainable.

1. The Petitioners are the accused in Crime No.347 of 2004 on the file of the respondent Police. The First Information Report was registered for offences under Sections 341, 323, 324 and 506(i), I.P.C. From the records it could be seen that an incomplete final report Section 173, Cr.P.C. was submitted to the learned Magistrate No.I, Dharmapuri on 3.11.2005. But the learned Magistrate returned the same as the same was defective. After rectifying the defects pointed out by the learned Magistrate, final report was again submitted only on 15.6.2009. Thereafter, cognizance was taken by the learned Magistrate. In those circumstances, the petitioner filed a Petition for discharge on the ground that taking cognizance was barred by limitation. The same was dismissed. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court with this Revision.

2. I Have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) and also perused the records carefully.

3. Indisputably, final report been submitted against the petitioners only for offenders under Sections 341, 328 and 506(i), I.P.C. The maximum punishment prescribed for the above said offences is only two years and therefore, limitation period is admittedly three years from the date of the commission of the alleged offences. Though it is stated that initially a final report was submitted on 3.11.2005, admittedly, the same was returned to the Police as the same was found to be defective. The respondent-Police did not care to re-submit the final report within the period of limitation so as enable the Court to take cognizance. Instead, the returned final report was re-submitted after three years, i.e. only on 15.6.2009. Thereafter, cognizance was taken. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the crucial date for calculating period of limitation is only 15.6.2009 and not 3.11.2005. But the learned Magistrate has taken 3.11.2005 as the crucial date. In my considered opinion, the said view taken by the learned Magistrate is incorrect. If correct approach is made and 15.6.2009 is taken as crucial date, certainly, it goes without saying that the case is barred by limitation under Section 468, Cr.P.C. So I am inclined to quash the entire proceedings.

4. At the same time, it could be seen that the Petition filed before the lower Court for discharge is not at all maintainable. The offences for which final report has been submitted are triable as a summons case. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Adalat Prasad v. Rooplal Jindal and others, 2004 (4) CTC 608 (SC): 2004 (7) SCC 338, Petition for discharge in a summons case is unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure and therefore, the Magistrate ought to have dismissed the petition as not maintainable. Thus, when the Petition filed before the lower Court itself is not maintainable, this Revision filed before this Court also cannot be entertained. On this ground, the Revision deserves only to be dismissed. But at the same time, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, I am inclined to treat this as a Original Petition and to exercise the power of this Court under Sections 482 and 483, Cr.P.C. to quash the entire Proceedings.

5. In the result, this Revision is treated as Original Petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C and the same is allowed. The entire proceedings in C.C. No.101 of 2009 on the file of the Magistrate No.II, Dharmapuri is quashed. Connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.