Crl.M.C.4843/2003

Page 1 of 10

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

Crl.M.C. 4843/2003

%

Date of reserve : 11.05.2009

Date of decision: 19.05.2009

BALBIR SINGH

…PETITIONER

Through:

Ms. Madhu Kapoor, Adv.

THE STATE & ANR.

...RESPONDENTS

Through:

Mr. Arvind Kr. Gupta, APP

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to Yes

see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Yes

:

MOOL CHAND GARG, J.

1. This petition arises out of an order passed by the ASJ, dismissing

the second revision petition filed by the petitioner under section 397

Cr.P.C. whereby he assailed the order passed by Magistrate dismissing

his application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. after the deletion of

charges under Section 504 IPC in case FIR No.247/98 of P.S. Seema

Puri.

2. The charge sheet in this case was filed under Section

323/342/347/379/427/504 IPC. The Metropolitan Magistrate after

hearing arguments on the question of charge deleted the offences

under Section 347/379/427 IPC but directed the petitioner to face trial

with respect to offences under Section 323/342/504 IPC. The petitioner

then filed a revision petition under Section 397/399 Cr.P.C. which was

2009:DHC:2178

Crl.Rev.P.610/2007

Page 2 of 10

allowed in part and the offences under Section 504 IPC were also

deleted.

3. Subsequently the petitioner filed an application before the MM

concerend under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

alleging that the challan filed in this case registered on 25.04.1998 on

a report filed on 24.04.1998 could not have proceeded further for the

offences which were left to be tried under Section 322/323 of the IPC

after the order of Additional Sessions Judge deleting the charges under

Section 504 IPC., the case has become time barred. By the impugned

order the ASJ, Karkardooma who dismissed the revision petition filed

second time by the petitioner after his application under Section 468

Cr.P.C. was dismissed, it has been observed that:

Thus, it is seen from the record that in the instant case

investigation was carried out against the accused by the

investigating

Agency

in

the

abovesaid

case

FIR

No.247/98 dated 25.04.1998 for offences punishable

under Sections 323/342/347/379/504 as also 427 IPC on

the basis of which police report/challan under the

provisions of Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed by the

investigation agency in the ld. Trial Court on 27.09.99 on

which date the challan was admittedly not time barred

for the offences for which it had been filed against the

accused as per the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C.

5. Admittedly, also in the instant case the ld. Trial

court has framed charges under Sections 323/341/504

IPC against the accused vide its order dated 28/07/01

and as per the provision of Section 468(3) Cr.P.C. 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. Thus, it can be said in no uncertain terms

that the cognizance had been taken by the ld. Trial Court

for offences under Section 323/343/504 IPC against the

accused on the date on which the challan for the said

offences as on said date. It was only on 12/10/01 that

charge under Seciton 504 IPC was dropped against the

accused by the Revisional Court on revision by the

accused as abovesaid. In my opinion, the said dropping

of charge under Section 504 IPC against the accused

vide order dated 12/10/01 of the Revisional Court would

not render the prosecution of the accused for the

remaining offences under Sections 323/342 IPC vide the

impugned challan time barred as has been alleged by

the ld. Counsel for the revisionist/accused since the

impu