Back
2015 Supreme(MP) 132
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
B.D. Rathi, J.
Mukesh Kumar and others v. State of M.P. and another
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No.2756 of 2010 (Gwalior);
Decided on 5.2.2015.
R.K. Soni for petitioners;
Pramod Pachouri, Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1/State;
Yogesh Chaturvedi for respondent No.2.
Headnote:(1) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.482, 468(2)(c) and 472 -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.406, 407 and 420 -- petition under -- for quashing entire proceeding charge-sheeted filed under -- whenever demand was made -- a fresh period of limitation began to run -- prima facie it is a case of continuing offence committed under section 406 of IPC -- entire crop kept in godown after entering into contract to pay rent -- same was not returned on demand -- clearly it is a case of criminal breach of trust.
Held : On perusal of FIR, it seems that in such period of nine and a half months many times crop or its value was demanded and always accused/persons used to promise the complainant to fulfil the demand. Therefore, prima facie, it is a case of continuing offence committed under section 406 of IPC and whenever demand was made, from that date a fresh period of limitation began to run and it would be a continuing offence under section 472 of CrPC.
On perusal of the FIR, it clearly indicates that the entire crop of Gram was kept by the complainant in the godown of the petitioners, after entering into the contract to pay the rent but the same was not returned on demand. Prima facie, clearly it’s a case of criminal breach of trust. 1991 CrLJ 2535 referred to.
(2) Penal Code, 1860 -- S.420 -- Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S.482 -- crop was kept in godown voluntarily on basis of payment of rent -- not evidenced that complainant was dishonestly induced to deliver his property -- offence under -- not made out. 1974 CrLJ 207 discussed. [Para 13
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- Ss.482 and 468(3) -- Penal Code, 1860 -- Ss.406 and 407 -- in relation to offences which may be tried together -- period of limitation shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with more severe punishment -- cognizance also taken for offence under section 406 with 407 of IPC by trial Court was valid -- no illegality committed.
Held : As per the provisions contained under section 468(3) of CrPC 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 more severe punishment. In this case, offence under section 407 of IPC is punishable upto the extent of seven years, therefore, cognizance also taken for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC by the trial Court was valid and no illegality was committed in doing so.
¼1½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482] 468¼2½¼x½ rFkk 472 & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 406] 407 rFkk 420 & ds v/khu ;kfpdk & laiw.kZ dk;Zokgh dks vfHk[kafMr djus ds fy, ftlesa ds v/khu vkjksi&i= Qkby fd;k x;k & tc&tc ek¡x dh xbZ & u, fljs ls dkykof/k dh ifjlhek O;rhr gksuk vkjaHk gqbZ & izFken`”V~;k ;g Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 406 ds v/khu dkfjr fd;k x;k yxkrkj vijk/k dk ekeyk gS & HkkM+k vnk djus ds fy, lafonk djus ds ckn laiw.kZ Qly xksnke esa j[kh xbZ & tks fd ek¡x djus ij okfil ugha dh xbZ & Li”Vr;k ;g vkijkf/kd U;kl Hkax dk ekeyk gSA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk ifj’khyu djus ij ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd bl lk<+s ukS ekg dh dkykof/k esa dbZ ckj Qly ;k blds ewY; dh ek¡x dh xbZ rFkk ges’kk vfHk;qDr O;fDr;ksa us ifjoknh ls ek¡x iwjh djus dk opu fn;kA blfy, izFken`”V~;k ;g Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 406 ds v/khu dkfjr fd;k x;k yxkrkj vijk/k dk ekeyk gS rFkk tc&tc ek¡x dh xbZ ml rkjh[k ls u, fljs ls dkykof/k dh ifjlhek O;rhr gksuk vkjaHk gqbZ rFkk ;g naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 472 ds v/khu yxkrkj vijk/k gksxkA
izFke bfryk fjiksVZ dk ifj’khyu djus ij blls Li”V rkSj ij minf’kZr gksrk gS fd pus dh laiw.kZ Qly ifjoknh ds }kjk] HkkM+k vnk djus ds fy, lafonk djus ds ckn ;kph ds xksnke esa j[kh xbZ fdarq tks ek¡x djus ij okfil ugha dh xbZA izFken`”V~;k Li”V rkSj ij ;g U;kl Hkax dk ekeyk gSA 1991 lhvkj ,y ts 2535 fufnZ”VA
¼2½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 420 & naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 & Qly LosPNk ls HkkM+k lans; ds vk/kkj ij xksnke esa j[kh xbZ & lkf{;r ugha fd ifjoknh dks csbZekuh ls viuh laifr ifjnku djus ds fy, mRizsfjr fd;k x;k & ds v/khu vijk/k & ugha curk gSA 1974 lhvkj ,y ts 207 foosfprA
¼iSjk 13½
¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 482 rFkk 468¼3½ & naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 406 rFkk 407 & lkFk&lkFk fopkfjr gks ldus okys vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa dkykof/k dh ifjlhek dk vo/kkj.k ml vijk/k ls gksxk tks vf/kd dBksj naM ls naMuh; gksxk & fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 407 ds lkFk /kkjk 406 ds v/khu Hkh fy;k x;k laKku fof/kekU; gS & dksbZ voS/krk dkfjr ugha dh xbZA
naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 468¼3½ esa varfoZ”V mica/kksa ds vuqlkj] ifjlhek dh dkykof/k] mu vijk/kksa ds laca/k esa tks lkFk&lkFk fopfjr fd, tk ldrs gksa] dk vo/kkj.k ml vijk/k ls gksxk tks vf/kd dBksj naM ls naMuh; gksxkA bl ekeys esa] Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 407 ds v/khu vijk/k lkr o”kZ dh lhek rd naMuh; gS blfy, fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk Hkkjrh; n.M lafgrk dh /kkjk 406 ds v/khu naMuh; vijk/k dk fy;k x;k laKku Hkh fof/kekU; Fkk rFkk ,slk djus esa dksbZ voS/krk ugha dh xbZA
1. This petition has been preferred under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the following relief :
“By allowing this petition Crime No.265/2006 registered at Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.92/2007 arisen out of the aforesaid crime, pending in the Court of JMFC, Mungaoli [State of M.P. v. Mukesh and others], be quashed.”
2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, are that one written complaint was filed by Jagram Singh (respondent No.2 herein) before the Station House Officer, Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) to the effect that he is an agriculturist having 40 Bighas of agricultural land. In the year 2002, 91 quintals of gram crop was kept in the godown of accused-petitioners from 3.5.2002 to 27.5.2002 and the rent of which was decided as Rs.Two per bag per month. After four months when the aforesaid Gram Crop was demanded by him it was told by accused/applicant Rakesh that entire crop had already been sold at Delhi, therefore, either value of the crop would be paid or the crop would be returned after getting it purchased again. But till filing of the complaint i.e. on 10.9.2006 neither crop was returned nor was its value to the tune of Rs.1,55,000/- paid. On the basis of this FIR, Crime No.265/2006 was registered at Police Station Mungaoli, District Ashok Nagar (M.P.) for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet has been filed under sections 406, 407 and 420 of IPC.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that as per the allegations entire crop was kept in the godown from 3.5.2002 to 27.5.2002 meaning thereby more than four years before, from the date of lodging the FIR. The offence under section 406 of IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine, or with both. As per the provisions of section 468 of CrPC, for such kind of offence which is punishable only with three years’ imprisonment, cognizance cannot be taken by the Court after a prescribed period of limitation i.e. three years from the commission of the offence. Because the offence was committed in the year 2002 and the complaint was made after a period of four years i.e. in the year 2006, therefore, cognizance should not have been taken by the trial Court. It is also submitted by Shri Soni, learned counsel, that one civil suit was also filed by Jagram against the applicants-accused persons. It is also submitted by Shri Soni, learned counsel, that nowhere offence under sections 407 and 420 of IPC is made out and for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC cognizance cannot be taken in view of the specific bar of limitation given under section 468 CrPC. It is also submitted that trial is still pending and charges have not been framed yet. Thus, by allowing the present petition, entire proceedings may be quashed.
4. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, that on perusal of the facts mentioned in the complaint it is evident that many times crop was demanded by the complainant but neither it was returned not its value was paid by the accused/persons/petitioners, hence, it is a case which may be treated under section 472 CrPC. Offence was committed continuously by the petitioners-accused persons, therefore, always a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run i.e. the moment whenever payment was denied or the return of crop by the applicant. It is also submitted by Shri Chaturvedi, learned counsel, that charge-sheet has been filed not only for the offence punishable under section 406 of IPC but also under sections 407 and 420 of IPC and the offence under section 407 of IPC is punishable for a term which may be extended to seven years. Offence under section 420 of IPC is punishable for a term which may be extended to seven years, the
