Prayer: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to call for the records in Cr.No.23 of 2019 pending on the file of the Station House Officer, PCR Cell Police Station, Puducherry and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.S.Senthhilkumar

For Respondent(s): Mr.A.Alexander Government Advocate (Crl.side) Puducherry

Mrs.S.Vidya for Mr.R.S.Vaideeswaran for R2

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition is filed to quash the records in Cr.No.23 of 2019, pending on the file of the Station House Officer, PCR Cell Police Station, Puducherry

The petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos.1 to 4 respectively. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant had earlier preferred a complaint against the petitioners and the same was registered in Cr.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the respondent police and while being so, on 15.02.2019 when the de facto complainant’s daughter was studying in her home, the first petitioner, being the neighbour, was playing loud music in his mechanic shop and when the de facto complainant’s daughter questioned the same, the first and second petitioners mocked the de facto complainant’s daughter and on knowing the same, the de facto complainant on the very same evening questioned the petitioners and at that time, the petitioners attacked the de facto complainant thereby causing injuries and being aggrieved by the same, the de facto complainant preferred a complaint before the Reddiarpalayam Police Station and registered a case in Cr.No.23 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Section 294(b), 323 r/w. 34 IPC and on further investigation the Reddiarpalayam Police ascertained the fact that the de facto complainant belonged to SC community and altered the offences to 294(b), 323 r/w. 34 IPC and 3(2)(va) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 and have transferred the case to the respondent police.

Initially, the petitioners filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.5880 of 2021 to quash the FIR in Cr.No.23 of 2019 and this Court by an order dated 13.09.2022, dismissed the same as infructuous on recording the submission made by the first respondent that the investigation has already been completed and final report has been filed in Cr.No.23 of 2019 before the concerned jurisdictional Court. However, the first respondent did not file any charge sheet as represented before the Court and it is also evident from the copy application filed by the petitioner seeking certificate of the charge sheet in Cr.No.25/2019 and the same was returned for the reason that charge sheet not yet filed before the trial Court. Therefore, the petitioners once again approached this Court by way of filing the present petition to quash the FIR in Cr.No.23/2019.

The only ground raised by the petitioner is that no cognizance can be taken by the trial Court since the first respondent did not complete the investigation and file final report within a period of one year from the date of registration of FIR registered for the offences under Section 294(b) and 323 IPC.

Admittedly, the first respondent did not file final report so far, even after completion of investigation in Cr.No.23 of 2019. Both the offences are punishable with a maximum punishment of three months and one year. Therefore, as per the provisions under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the first respondent ought to have completed the investigation and file final report within a period of one year from the registration of FIR and so that the trial court can take cognizance. It is relevant to extract the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. which reads as under:

“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 w