Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Jai Krishna Dubey@ Raj Dubey and Others - Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Parties
Application U/s 482 No. 11167 of 2022
Decided On : 05-07-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353, 504, 506 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 468 – Quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case – Punishment for rioting – Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty – Punishment for criminal intimidation – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation – Present application has been moved on behalf of applicants for quashing of entire proceedings of Criminal Case as well as summoning order and charge sheet arising out of Case Crime No.308 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station, District , pending before court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate – Held, Therefore, relevant date for taking cognizance in State case is date of institution of prosecution and in view of Apex Court judgment of (Supra) and Division Bench and Single Bench judgments of this Court in cases of (Supra) and (Supra) respectively date of institution of prosecution is date of registration of F.I.R – Therefore, if F.I.R. of a case has been filed within time then cognizance taken by court cannot be held time barred, even if date of taking cognizance by court is beyond time – Application dismissed.
Key Points: - The judgment discusses the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year, stating it is three years (!) (!) (!) - It holds that the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of the institution of prosecution, i.e., the date of filing of the FIR or registration of the complaint, not the date of cognizance by the Magistrate (!) (!) (!) (!) - It cites that if FIR is filed within time, cognizance taken later cannot render the proceedings time-barred; i.e., time-bar does not attach if prosecution is instituted within the period (!) (!) - The Amritlal/Sarah Mathew lineage clarifies that the date of institution of prosecution, not cognizance date, governs limitation; in State cases, FIR/date of registration is the relevant date (!) (!) (!) - The court eventually dismisses the application, finding no merit to challenge cognizance on limitation grounds since institution of prosecution was within time (!)
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and perused the record of the case.
2. The present application has been moved on behalf of applicants for quashing of the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.207 of 2021 as well as summoning order dated 27.01.2021 and charge sheet dated 30.06.2017 (State Vs. Jai Krishan), arising out of Case Crime No.308 of 2017, under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Sarpataha, District Jaunpur, pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaunpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that he is pressing the instant application on sole ground that cognizance order dated 27.01.2021 passed by court below is time barred and therefore proceedings pending against applicants is bad.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the relevant background with respect to the present matter is that on 11.06.2017, F.I.R. of the present case was lodged against applicants in respect of incident dated 10.06.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353, 504, & 506 I.P.C. and investigation of the case was completed on 30.06.2017 and charge sheet was also prepared on 30.06.2017 under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353, 504 & 506 I.P.C. against the applicants but charge sheet dated 30.06.2017 could only be filed before the court concerned on 27.01.2021 and the court concerned took the cognizance on 27.01.2021 i.e., after more than three years from the date of commission of offence i.e., 10.06.2017.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the cognizance taken by the court below on 27.01.2021 is time barred as it was taken after more than three years from the date of incident. He further submitted that charge sheet against the applicants has been filed under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353 & 506 I.P.C. and none of the offence is punishable with imprisonment more than three years and therefore by virtue of Section 468 Cr.P.C., after three years of the incident, cognizance cannot be taken by the court below. He further submitted that as incident is said to have taken place on 10.06.2017 therefore, cognizance can only be taken by the court concerned within three years from the date of commission of offence i.e., 10.06.2017 but in the present case, the cognizance was taken by the court below on 27.01.2021, beyond three years from the date of incident i.e., 10.06.2017. Therefore, cognizance order dated 27.01.2021 is time barred and proceedings pending against the applicants is bad.
6. Per contra, learned A.G.A. submitted that as incident is said to have taken place on 10.06.2017 and F.I.R. of the present matter was lodged on 11.06.2017 i.e., next date. Therefore, it cannot be said that cognizance taken by the court below was time barred as F.I.R. of the present case was lodged well within three years from the date of the incident i.e., 10.06.2017. He further submitted that investigation was also concluded within three years from the date of incident and after investigation, charge sheet was also prepared well within time i.e., on 30.06.2017 but it was filed in the court concerned on 27.01.2021 and court below without any further delay took the cognizance on same day i.e., 27.01.2021. Therefore, complainant i.e., O.P. No.2 cannot be held liable for the delay in forwarding the charge sheet dated 30.06.2017 before the court concerned. Learned A.G.A., therefore, submitted that there is no illegality in the cognizance order dated 27.01.2021 passed by the court below. Therefore, present application is liable to be dismissed.
7. I have given my anxious consideration on the rival submissions advanced by both the parties and perused the record of the case.
8. Admitted facts of the case are, in respect of the incident dated 10.06.2017, O.P. No.2 lodged F.I.R. against the applicants under Sections 147, 148, 336, 332, 353, 504 & 506 I.P.C. on 11.06.2017 i.e., next date and investigation of the case was concluded on 30.06.2017 and charge shee
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
