261 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : September 03, 2025 Rajinder Singh Virk and others ...... Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ ***

Present :-Mr. Anmol Jawan Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. I. P. S. Sabharwal, DAG., Punjab.

Mr. Lovish Rattan, Advocate for Mr. R. K. Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.2.

***

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J (Oral)

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the FIR No. 0355 dated 18.12.2017 registered under Section 323, 341, 427, 506, 148, 149 IPC, 1860 at Police Station Tripri, Patiala, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners refers to the FIR and submits that the above FIR was registered on the complaint of one Saranjit Kaur alleging that her husband Surinder Singh @ Chhina was contesting the election from Ward No.20 as a candidate from the Congress party. She had gone to cast her vote along with her sister-in-law who accompanied her. By around 12/1:00 noon when she was at a distance of around 50 yards from the main gate of Elementary School, Rasulpur Saidan, she saw the accused persons coming from the side of Guru Nanak Ashram along with 15/20 unknown workers of Akali Dal, holding sticks and brickbats in their hands. Sukhdev Singh, cousin of her husband Surinder Singh @ Chhina, also met them and there was an altercation between them and the workers. The assailants-petitioners hereinabove are alleged to have surrounded the complainant and given beatings to her, her husband as well as Sukhdev Singh, outside the Polling Booth resulting in registration of case.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the above case by the workers of Akali Dal. The petitioner No.1 is an ex-Municipal Councillor and was contesting for the post of Municipal Council from Ward No.20. The husband of the respondent No.2 and other people were casting bogus votes and when the petitioners started objecting to the same, the present FIR had been got lodged against them. He further contends that the Court would be precluded from taking cognizance of the offence in view of provisions contained in Section 468 of Cr.P.C. (Section 514 of BNSS). He contends that the FIR in question was registered on 18.12.2017 for the offences as above while the final report was filed on 20.03.2023. He submits that none of the offences is punishable for a sentence of more than three years, hence, same is barred in view of the limitation prescribed for taking cognizance of the said offence. He places reliance on the judgment passed by this Court in Kulwinder Singh @ Kinda Vs. State of Punjab in CRM-M-43675 of 2021 decided on

03.07.2023 Law Finder Id #2261117.

4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand contends that the petitioners were specifically named in the FIR and they had attacked the complainant party and caused injuries to them. The case was accordingly rightly registered.

5. He is, however not in a position to dispute the submission regarding applicability of Section 468 of Cr.P.C/514 of BNSS which imposes a prohibition on the Courts for taking cognizance of the offences which are barred by the limitation as prescribed thereunder.

6. He also does not dispute that the final report in the present case has been filed on 20.03.2023.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and have gone through the documents annexed along with the present petition.

8. For the facility of reference, the offences under which the FIR has been registered are tabulated hereunder:-

9. It is evident from the FIR that the offences for which the investigation has been conducted are for punishment of an offence punishable for 3 years and below. The provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C.,1973 as it was then and 514 of the BNSS, 2023 are extracted hereunder:-

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period