O R D E R

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1267/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura. It is a private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC. Annexure-A6 is the complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. This petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the above proceedings pending before the lower court.

2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the

3rd respondent. I also heard the Public Prosecutor.

3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The contention of the petitioner is that the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC and the complaint ought to have been filed within one year from the date of the alleged incident. Admittedly, in this case, the complaint was filed after one year. Therefore, it is barred by limitation and the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offences. This is the sum and substance of the contentions.

4. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the complainant explained the delay in the complaint and simply because the learned Magistrate has not considered the same in the order taking cognizance, it will be an injustice to the 3rd respondent, if this Court interfere with the order on the ground of delay. The counsel also submitted that if this Court feel that the learned Magistrate committed an error, this matter can be send back to the lower court.

5. Admittedly, the alleged incident in this case happened on 8.9.2014. The complaint was filed only on 1.8.2016. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Sec. 279 of the IPC is 6 months or a fine of Rs. 1000 or with both. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Sec. 337 of the IPC is 6 months or a fine of Rs.500/- or both. As per Sec. 468(2)(b) of the Cr.P.C., there is a limitation period in taking cognizance of the offences in which maximum punishment is for a term not exceeding one year. Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. is extracted herein.

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 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.”

6. From the above provision, it is clear that the period of limitation will be one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Admittedly, in this case, the maximum punishment that can be imposed under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC are below one year.

7. When this case came up for consideration, this Court directed the Registry to obtain a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura regarding the delay aspect raised by the petitioner in this Crl.M.C. The learned Magistrate forwarded a report dated 18.2.2019. The relevant portion of the report is extracted herein.

“CMP No.357/16 was filed by complainant Bindu Mukundan on

01.08.2016. Her sworn statement was recorded on 01.08.2016 itself. The statements on oath of the other witnesses were recorded on 27.08.2016 and