Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajbir Sehrawat
CRM-M-39168-2014 (O&M)
Kulwant Kaur v. State of Punjab & Ors
{Decided on 14/11/2018}
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468 – Criminal Complaint – Limitation – Plea of Limitation for taking cognizance can be taken at any stage – Therefore, time barred compliant cannot be entertained on the ground that the charge has been framed and objection qua limitation has not be taken at first instance. (Para 18)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.182 – False Information to Police – Calendra – Limitation – Period of limitation for filing of complaint under S.182 IPC would start running from the date the police has prepared the cancellation report and not from the date when Magistrate accepted the said cancellation report – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.468.
The fact remains that at the time when the police had prepared the cancellation report, it was sure, at least from its own side, that the information given to them was not correct. The acceptance of the cancellation report, by no means, is an order on veracity of the facts involved in the case. It is not a judgment on merits of the case as such. Despite acceptance of cancellation report by the Magistrate qua the FIR, the complainant can prove his/her case and get the accused convicted in the case by proceeding further as a complaint case. Therefore, the cancellation report, at the best, can be seen as acceptance of correctness of the ‘investigation’ by the police and not as a certificate that the facts mentioned in the FIR are incorrect. Therefore, it cannot be said that the police would be justified in waiting till acceptance of the cancellation report; for initiating any proceedings under Section 182 of IPC. (Para 19)
(D) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.182 – False Information to Police – Calendra – Limitation – The limitation for filing complaint under Section 182 IPC cannot be extended for the reasons beyond the statutory provisions, just because of conduct of the Investigation Officer himself. (Para 19)
(E) Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.182 – False Information to Police – Calendra – Limitation – Once the alleged offence as well as the offender are known to the complainant public servant then the limitation for filing complaint under Section 182 IPC would start running from the date this knowledge of the public servant becomes complete. (Para 17)
Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - This is a petition seeking quashing of the order dated 14.10.2014 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Jagraon, whereby the application for discharge of the petitioner in a complaint filed under Section 182 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘Act’) was dismissed, despite the fact that the complaint filed before the Magistrate was time barred and the cognizance of the same could not have been taken by the trial Court.
2. The brief facts in the present case are that the husband of the petitioner died on 16.01.2003. Sensing foul play in the death of the husband of the petitioner, she expressed her suspicion that her husband might have been murdered. Therefore, an intimation was sent to the police. It was stated by the petitioner in the complaint that the petitioner was residing at a different place and the husband of the petitioner was cremated even without intimating the petitioner and the last rites of her husband were also performed in the absence of the petitioner. The police did not register the FIR in the case.
3. However, the police did not register the case saying that they have conducted an inquiry and found that the complaint was not correct. However, feeling aggrieved of the inaction of the police, the petitioner filed CRM-M-35104-2003 on 06.08.2003 with a prayer that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon be directed to take action against the accused; named in the initial complaint. This Court issued a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jagraon to look into the representation made by the petitioner. Acting upon the order passed by this Court and finding some substance in the complaint, FIR No. 184 dated 19.08.2003 under Sections 302, 201, 420, 34 of IPC; was registered by the police. However, the police claimed to have investigated the matter and prepared the cancellation report on 04.01.2004. But the same was not presented before the Magistrate. As it transpires, thereafter, the petitioner also submitted an affidavit dated 07.06.2004; to the police; to the effect that the FIR was got registered due to some suspicion. It is only thereafter that the cancellation report was presented by the police before the Magistrate; on 03.03.2005. However, despite the petitioner having, allegedly, submitted the affidavit to the effect that she does not have any objection to the cancellation report, the Magistrate issued a notice to the petitioner before accepting the cancellation of the report. But, since the petitioner had already submitted the affidavit in this regard, therefore, she chose not to put in appearance before the Magistrate. So on appreciation of the evidence on the file, the Magistrate ordered to re-investigate the case, vide order dated 20.05.2006.
4. The police again investigated the case and prepared cancellation report on 16.06.2006. At this stage, on being given notice, the petitioner appeared before the Magistrate and again reiterated, vide a statement dated 13.07.2006; that she agrees with the cancellation report and she has no objection if the report is accepted. Accordingly, the cancellation report in the above said FIR was accepted by the Magistrate on 03.11.2007.
5. Having got scot free from the complaint in the FIR, one of the accused, namely, Manjit Inderpal Singh moved an application to the police for taking action against the present petitioner under Section 182 of IPC. It is upon this complaint, that in complaint under Section 182 IPC, the proceedings before the Magistrate has been initiated by the police.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had never made any complaint knowing the same to be false. The petitioner had only expressed her suspicion regarding the involvement of the accused qua the death of her husband. Therefore, no information, constituting the offence under Section 182 IPC, was ever given by the petitioner to the police. Still further,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
