Advocates:
['LN NGAMBA', 'Mr B ROSHNIKUMAR', '', 'A SACHIKUMAR', 'H DONALD']

Item No. 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR

AT IMPHAL

Cril. Petn. No. 10 of 2016

Shri Aribam Phulchand Sharma, aged about 49 years, s/o late A.

Haridash @ Narahari Sharma of Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, Imphal

East, P.S. – Porompat, Manipur.

….Petitioner

- Versus -

1. Adhikarimayum Gopal Sharma, s/o late Lalkanhai Sharma (now

deceased).

2. Adhikarimayum Dinabandhu Sharma, aged about 66 years, s/o

late Lalkanhai Sharma.

3. Adhikarimayum Irabot Sharma, aged about 57 years, s/o late

Lalkanhai Sharma.

4. Adhikarimayum Ongbi Binodini Devi, aged about 56 years, w/o

Irabot Sharma.

5. Adhikarimayum Kirti Sharma, aged about 54 years, s/o late

Lalkanhai Sharma.

6. Adhikarimayum Narjit Sharma, aged about 52 yearws, s/o late A.

Lalkanhai Sharma.

7. Adhikarimayum Ongbi Shantibala Devi, aged about 51 years, w/o

Narjit Sharma.

8. Adhikarimayum Dineshlal @ Mabungo Sharma, aged about 33

years, s/o Dinabandhu Sharma.

9. Adhikarimayum Rishikanta @ Mabungobi Sharma, aged about 30

years, S/o Dinabandhu Sharma;

10. Adhikarimayum Khogendro Sharma, aged about 31 years, S/o late

Gopal Sharma.

….. All of Brahmapur Aribam Leikai, P.S. Porompat, Imphal East,

Manipur.

Respondents

BEFORE

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KUMAR

11.11.2022

By way of this criminal petition, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the

petitioner assails the order dated 05.05.2015 passed by the learned Judicial

Magistrate First Class, Imphal East, dismissing his complaint case on the ground

LAIREN

MAYUM

INDRAJE

ET

SINGH

Digitally signed

by

LAIRENMAYUM

INDRAJEET

SINGH

Date:

2022.11.11

16:04:29 +05'30'

2

of limitation, and the order dated 14.04.2016 of the learned Sessions Judge,

Imphal East, confirming the same. He seeks a consequential direction to the

learned Magistrate to take cognizance in the complaint case by extending the

period of limitation.

Heard Mr. LN Ngamba, learned counsel for the petitioner; and

Mr. A. Sachikumar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

The complaint case of the petitioner related to certain offences

allegedly committed by the respondents on 06.03.2004. He had earlier filed a

complaint case in Cril. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004 before the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Imphal. He thereafter filed a transfer petition in Criminal (Transfer)

Case No. 11 of 2004 before the learned Sessions Judge, Manipur East. However,

after the transfer of the incumbent in the office of the learned Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Imphal, he claims to have approached his successor-in-office to

proceed with Cril. Misc. Case No. 37 of 2004 but claims that the file could not

be traced out. He then filed a fresh petition on 08.02.2010 before the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal. This complaint is stated to have been

forwarded to the Officer-in-Charge, Porompat Police Station, for investigation.

He stated that he then filed Cril. Misc. Case No. 31 of 2013 before the learned

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, to call for a status report on the

investigation. A report was submitted on 17.06.2013 stating that the

investigation was still pending. He then filed Cril. Misc. Case No. 372 of 2013 to

call for a report from the police and the same was stated to have been submitted

on 02.11.2013.

3

However, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Imphal East,

noted that the petitioner filed a complaint petition before the learned Chief

Judicial Magistrate, Imphal East, on 16.11.2013 and the same was sent to her

Court for doing the needful. As the complaint petition was filed on 16.11.2013

in relation to offences allegedly committed on 06.03.2004, the learned

Magistrate noted that, for taking cognizance of offences punishable with

imprisonment up to 3 years, the limitation period is 3 years under Section 468

Cr.P.C. As there was delay of more than 7 years in filing the complaint petition,

the learned Magistrate refused to take cognizance of the case. She a