The court ruled that a complaint for criminal breach of trust filed after the limitation period is barred, emphasizing the distinction between civil and criminal disputes.

JUDGMENT

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.

Heard Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, lerned counsel for applicants, Sri Ravindra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for O.P. No.2 and Sri Om Prakash Mishra, learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Applicants before this Court are owners of one M/s DSC Ltd.

3. At this stage it is not under dispute that aforesaid Company had executed an agreement dated 18.5.2012 with complainant's company for construction of residential units at Meerut. It was the case of complainant that on a promise of regular payment, they had invested about Rs.13 lakhs for construction, however, said payment was not made and later on company's construction material was also confiscated.

4. It is further case of complainant that a civil suit was filed at the behest of complainant in the year 2013 against present applicants for permanent injunction. Said civil suit is still pending where applicants are appearing. It is further case of complainant that on 20.10.2019, applicants have proposed for a settlement and to put pressure to enter into an agreement on a very minimum amount. Complainant alleged that it was modus operandi of applicants to put pressure on small construction companies to negotiate on a very small amount.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, complainant filed a complaint, under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 28.2.2020, which was considered as a criminal complaint vide order dated 30.9.2020.

6. In aforesaid case, statement of complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. as well as of witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. and thereafter by way of impugned order passed under Section 204 Cr.P.C. dated 13.3.2024, applicants were summoned to face trial under Section 406 I.P.C., relevant part thereof is reproduced hereinafter:

7. Learned counsel for applicants submits that dispute in present case was essentially of a civil nature, but complainant has given it a criminal colour. Complainant has already relegated to civil suit way back in the year 2013, as such a complaint filed in year 2020 i.e. after 7 years is barred by provisions of law.

8. Learned counsel for applicants in support of above submissions has referred Section 468 Cr.P.C. i.e. 'Bar of taking cognizance after a lapse of period of limitation'. He further referred Section 406 I.P.C. which is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both and to take cognizance of such offence, limitation is of three years. For reference, Section 468 Cr.P.C. is reproduced hereinafter:

"Section 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 a 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 punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."

9. Learned counsel for applicants further submitted that it is still under dispute as to whether complainant's company has executed some constructions or not and as to whether it has spent certain money or not, therefore, on facts of this case, no offence is made out under Section 406 I.P.C. as well as basic ingredients of 'entrustment' was missing.

10. Learned counsel for the complainant has not disputed above facts of present case as mentioned above, except that during proceedings of a civil suit at a later stage in the year 2019, applicants have forced complainant to enter into a compromise, as