The prompt lodging of FIR is vital to maintain its spontaneity and truthfulness, and an unexplained delay in filing the FIR may be fatal to prosecute the accused.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Adarsh Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

2. Sri Aniruddha Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate has filed counter affidavit, today in the Court, the same is taken on record.

3. As per the office report dated 04.12.2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District-Lakhimpur Kheri has apprised the Court that the notice has been served upon the opposite party No.2 in person, however, no one has appeared on behalf of opposite party No.2.

4. By means of this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has assailed the impugned Charge-sheet No.01 dated 29.01.2023 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ F.T.C., Lakhimpur Kheri in Criminal Case No.1450 of 2013 (State vs. Manjeet Singh) arising out of Case Crime No.618 of 2022, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Bheera, District-Kheri as well as the summoning order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No.3, Lakhimpur Kheri.

5. The precise contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned First Information Report (in short F.I.R.) bearing No.618 of 2022, under Section 406 I.P.C., Police Station-Bheera, District-Kheri has been lodged on 10.11.2022 for the alleged incident which is more than four years old.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the delay of more than four years has not been explained in the F.I.R. He has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No.CA-1 of the counter affidavit which is a statement of the informant recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. wherein the delay of more than four years has not been explained.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that in an offence under Section 406 I.P.C. maximum punishment is three years but the impugned F.I.R. has been lodged after the delay of four years and such delay has not been explained. He has further submitted that despite the aforesaid fact the Investigating Agency has filed the charge-sheet against the petitioner without having any relevant material and the corroborating evidences supporting the case of the prosecution.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the dictum of Apex Court rendered in re: Amrit Lal vs. Shanti Lal Soni & Ors. reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248. In the aforesaid judgement, the Apex Court has considered the judgment of Apex Court delivered by a Constitution Bench in re: Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr. K.M. Cherin & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 62, wherein two questions have been decided. The first question was whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? And the second question was that which of two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121] or Bharat Kale (Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559] (which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty (2007) 7 SCC 394]), lays down the correct law?

The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows:-

"51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559] which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394] lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121: 1990 SCC (Cri) 646] will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for decid