Cognizance of offenses under IPC taken after the limitation period is invalid without proper justification from the prosecution.

O R D E R

Dated this the 8th day of January 2021 ...

Petitioners are accused in C.C.607 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvanathapuram.

2. The above case is charge sheeted against the petitioners alleging offences punishable under Sections 294 (b) and 283 r/w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ).

3. The prosecution case is that, on

14-3-2016 at 8 a.m., the accused sprinkled water, spoke abuse and opened the gate creating obstruction in front of the house of the accused when the defacto complainant was passing through the way.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Public Prosecutor. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners raised a single point in this case. According to him, the alleged incident happened on 14-3-2016. The final report was filed on 13-3-2018 and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences on 16-3-2018. Therefore, the counsel submitted that, the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance because it is barred by limitation under Section 468 (2)(b) of the Cr.P.C.

6. The learned Public Prosecutor conceded that, no petition is filed for condoning the delay in filing the final report. When this case came up for consideration on 7-8-2018, this court passed the following:

“The allegation is that the incident happened on 14-3-2016 at 8 a.m. and cognizance was taken on 4-4-2018. Hence this is barred by limitation, it is contended. The learned Public Prosecutor on instruction submitted that after completion of investigation, final report was laid on 13-3-2018 for offences punishable under Section 294 ,283 and Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code . The court accepted the final report and cognizance was taken. There was no application for extension of time also. This is recorded. In the above circumstance I feel that the contention set up by the petitioner herein that the cognizance was taken beyond the time stipulated under Section 468 (2)(b) of the Cr.P.C. appears to be sustainable. It seems that the defacto complainant is not made a party. I feel that she should also be heard in the Crl.M.C. The learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to implead the defacto complainant.

Post on 17-8-2018.”

Accordingly, notice was issued to the 2nd respondent who is the defacto complainant in this case. Though notice was served to the 2nd respondent, there was no appearance.

7. The offence alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 294 (b) and 283 IPC . As far as Section 294 (b) is concerned, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is three months or with fine or both. As per Section 283 is concerned, the maximum punishment that can be imposed is only a fine of Rs.200/-. As per Section 468 (2)(b) Cr.P.C., one year is the period of limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the above offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term less than one year.

Admittedly, the final report in this case is filed beyond one year from the date of the alleged incident. There was absolutely no explanation for the same from the prosecution before the learned Magistrate. There was no petition filed by the prosecution for condoning the delay in filing the final report. Therefore, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate for the above offences is per se illegal. Therefore, I think, the prosecution against the petitioners are not sustainable.

Hence, this Crl.M.C. is allowed. All further proceedings in C.C. No.607 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thiruvananthapuram are quashed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN pkk JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE A:- CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT IN CRIME NO.213/17 U/S 426,294,283 & 34 I.P.C. OF MEDICAL COLLEGE POLICE STATION,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

//TRUE COPY//