O R D E R

This Criminal Miscellaneous case is filed to quash the proceedings in CC No.1439/2017 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Kakkanad arising from Crime No.167/2013 of Thrikkakara Police Station. The petitioner is the accused in the above case. The above case is charge- sheeted alleging offences punishable under Secs. 341, 323 r/w

34 IPC.

2. The prosecution case is that on 12.10.2010, the petitioner being a doctor and staff of Sunrise Hospital, Kakkanad restrained the defacto complainant and his son and manhandled them and thereby committed the offences. According to the petitioner, even if the entire allegations are accepted, no offence is made out against the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor.

4. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the crime was registered on 06.02.2013, for the incident allegedly happened on 12.10.2010. It is also submitted that the prosecution is barred by limitation under Sec.468 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the defacto complainant and his henchmen trespassed into the hospital and ransacked the hospital, for which Crime No.2032/2010 was registered by the Thrikkakara Police under Secs. 448, 323 r/w 34 IPC. When evidence was started in that case, the defacto complainant filed a writ petition before this Court and thereafter, Crime No. 167/2013 was registered and consequently, Annexure-I FIR and Annexure-II final report is submitted. It is submitted that the continuation of the prosecution is an abuse of process of court. The Public Prosecutor submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner is to be raised before the trial court. The counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent also submitted that the contentions are matters of evidence and this Court may not interfere with the above case.

5. The short point raised by the petitioner is that the prosecution is initiated after the period mentioned in Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. Sec.468 (1) Cr.P.C. says that, 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. As per Sec.468 (2)(b) Cr.P.C., the period of limitation shall be one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. The offences alleged in this case are under Secs. 323 & 341 IPC. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Sec. 323 IPC is one year and the maximum punishment that can be imposed under Sec. 341 IPC is simple imprisonment for one month.

6. When this case came up for consideration, this Court directed the Registry to get a report from the learned Magistrate about the dates, on which the prosecution is initiated. The learned Magistrate submitted a report in which, it is clear that the alleged incident was on 12.10.2010 and the complaint filed by the injured-Abubacker was 09.07.2012 before the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thrikkakara. The crime was registered by the Thrikkakara Police on 06.02.2013 against the petitioner and the final report was filed on 15.03.2013. The Apex Court in Amritlal v. Shantilal Soni and Others [2022 (2) KHC 442] considered the question of limitation. The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted hereunder :

10. “Therefore, the enunciations and declaration of law by the Constitution Bench do not admit of any doubt that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under S.468 CrPC, 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 of the offence. The High Court has made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04/12/2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10/07/2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission