120 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 05.03.2025 Kuldeep Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present: Mr. Sukhmeet Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the order dated 05.10.2023 passed by learned JMIC, Faridkot, in a case FIR No.69 dated 10.05.2016, under Section 279, 304-A, 427 IPC, at Police Station City Kotkapura, District Faridkot, vide which the application moved by prosecution for condonation of delay in filing the challan has been allowed and judgment dated 29.02.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot in Crl. Revision No.94 of 10.11.2023 titled as Kuldeep Singh vs. State, vide which revision petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. FIR in the present case was lodged on the statement of Gurmail Singh. On the registration of the FIR, the investigation commenced. On completion of the investigation, challan was presented by the Investigating Agency on 04.12.2020. The prosecution filed an application seeking extension in the period of limitation for presenting the challan, which was opposed by the petitioner. However, after hearing both the sides, learned trial Court accepted the same vide impugned order dated 05.10.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner assailed the same by way of filing criminal revision before learned Revisional Court. However, learned Revisional Court on hearing both the sides, finding no infirmity in the order passed by learned trial Court, dismissed the revision petition vide order dated 29.02.2024. Thus, upheld the order passed by learned trial Court. Aggrieved by the orders passed by both the trial Court and the Revisional Court, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing the present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has precisely submitted that FIR in the present case was lodged on 10.05.2016 and admittedly, the Investigating Agency filed the challan on 04.12.2020. He submits that as per the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C, limitation for taking cognizance in the present case was three years, however, admittedly when the occurrence had taken place in the year 2016, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence alleged beyond the period of three years. He submits that both the trial Court and the Revisional Court have miserably failed to appreciate the same and thus, the impugned orders are unsustainable in the eyes of law.

4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is deciphered that FIR in the present case was registered on 10.05.2016, however, the challan was presented by the Investigating Agency on 04.12.2020. Application was filed by the prosecution seeking extension of limitation in filing the challan. For resolving the issue raised in the present case, appreciation of provisions of Sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C.

are relevant, which are 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 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 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.]

473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provision