Judgment

Mr. Deepak Manchanda, J. (Oral):- This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. Seeking quashing of FIR No.113 dated 12.5.2016, under Section 324 , 323, 148, 149 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Faridkot, District Faridkot and all subsequent proceedings arising out of the said FIR qua the petitioners.

2. As per the alleged FIR, the petitioners assaulted complainantrespondent No.2, as petitioner No.1 was allegedly asking him to vacate the shop forcefully and upon a refusal made by respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 started vandalizing his goods kept inside the shop also took around Rs.46,000-47,000/- from his cash box. When respondent No.2 objected to the same, petitioner No.1 grabbed him by his neck and petitioners No.2 and 3 alongwith two other unknown persons entered the shop and gave beatings to him. Petitioner No.2 gave a kirch blow on his right side of shoulder. Petitioner No.1 and 3 grabbed him from his neck and tried to choke his breath and also kept on beating him. On his raising alarm, his brother Manpreet Singh and other people gathered there and on seeing them, the petitioners ran away from the spot alongwith with their weapons.

3. Vide order dated 14.11.2022, learned State counsel sought time to have instructions. On 15.12.2022, , a detailed reply by way of affidavit was filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that as per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the present matter being time barred, no Court can take cognizance after a lapse of period of limitation and as per sentences provided under Section 324 /323/148/149 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860, the period of limitation is only 3 years. Learned counsel further contends that if the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue then the same would amount to misuse of process of law being time barred and the liberty of the petitioners would be curtailed due to the pendency of the wrong criminal proceedings where the petitioners have been falsely implicated and the present FIR in question be quashed on this score alone.

5. Learned State counsel has referred to the reply dated 14.12.2022 and submits that the present FIR was registered on the statement of respondent No.2 who was medico-legally examined and received 5 injuries on his person. He further submits that during the course of investigation it transpired that a minor altercation took place between the complainant and petitioner No.1 on the issue of rent and no such incident occurred as alleged in the FIR and the present FIR was got registered by respondent No.2 with ulterior motives. He also submits that since no occurrence took place, the Investigating Officer recommended the FIR to be cancelled while DDR No.23 dated 5.10.2016 and accordingly, the cancellation report was also prepared on 7.10.2016 which was submitted before the trial Court, but since respondent No.2 objected to the same, the trial Court did not accept the cancellation report and ordered for further investigation vide order dated 29.4.2021 and the same is under process.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to Section 468 Cr.P.C. And the same is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:-

“468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe p