Criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. when barred by limitation or lacking essential ingredients of alleged offenses.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to call for the records in CC.No.280 of 2023 on the file of Judicial Magistrate Poonamalle, Thiruvallur District and quash the same.

2.The 2^nd respondent lodged a complaint before the 1^st respondent alleging that on 11.12.2017 at about 22.50 hrs, while the 2^nd respondent was proceeding in his motor cycle, the petitioner pushed him down and threatened him with dire consequences, therefore, he sustained injuries and lodged a complaint and on receipt of the complaint, the 1^st respondent police registered FIR in Crime No.1866 of 2017 for offences under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506 Part I of IPC. After completion of investigation, the same has been taken cognizance by the trial court in C.C.No.280 of 2023.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner raised the following grounds:-

(I) The entire proceedings cannot be sustained and is barred by limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., for the reason that the 1^st respondent filed final report after a period of six years.

(ii) Even according to the case of the prosecution, no offence is made out, since the 2^nd respondent did not even sustain any injury and even according to him, the petitioner pushed him down and the 2^nd respondent fell down.

4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent and perused the materials placed on record.

5. On a perusal of the records and the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side), it revealed that due to previous enmity, when the 2^nd respondent was proceeding in his motor cycle, the petitioner pushed him down and threatened him with dire consequences. The offence under Section 294(b) IPC is punishable to a maximum period of three months, the offence under Section 323 of IPC is punishable to a maximum period of one year and the offence under Section 506 Part I of IPC is punishable to the extent of two years. However, the 1^st respondent, after completion of investigation, filed the final report after the expiry of the corresponding time limit, which is contemplated under Section 468 IPC. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 468 Cr.P.C., “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 a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

(3) For the purposes of this Section, the period of limitation, in relation to offence 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. Therefore, admittedly, the 1^st respondent completed the investigation after expiry of the period contemplated under Section 468 Cr.P.C., That apart, upon perusal of the entire records, it is seen that no offence is made out. To attract the offences under Section 294(b) of IPC, there must be an uttering of words to affect the person, who lodged the complaint. In this regard it is relevant to extract the Section 294(b) of IPC, as follows :-

"294. Obscene acts and so