(Madan B. Lokur and Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ.)
Prem Lata & Anr. _______________ Appellant(s)
v.
State of Rajasthan & Anr. ___________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal No. 2033 of 2010, decided on March 12, 2015
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
The complainant (respondent No. 2) has been served but no one has put in appearance on his behalf.
A complaint was filed against the appellants on 24.04.1996 under Sections 147, 452, 395 and 209 of the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that on 24.04.1996, the appellants came to the shop of the complainant with sticks and asked him either to vacate the shop or else they would throw out their goods. The complainant tried to make the appellants understand that a civil suit is pending in the court and therefore the appellants should not resort to any illegal acts. It is stated in the complaint that the appellants were getting ready to attack the complainant who managed to run away, but in the meanwhile one of the appellants took away Rs. 300/- from his pocket.
The matter was reported to the police by the complainant and after due investigations, the police filed a closure report on 29.06.1996. Against the closure report, the complainant filed a protest petition and it appears that he did not pursue the protest petition for a considerable period of time and did not examine any witnesses. Eventually it is only on 23.08.2008 that the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint. In other words, cognizance of the complaint was taken after a gap of more than 12 years.
According to learned counsel for the appellants the delay is attributable to the complainant who did not produce any witnesses in support of his protest petition.
Our attention has been drawn to Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides that for an offence which is punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years the period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence is three years. In the present case, cognizance was taken by the Magistrate after more than 12 years.
Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the complaint since it was barred by time. The High Court was clearly in error in dismissing the revision petition filed by the appellants challenging the cognizance order.
Consequently, the order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The complaint is quashed.
———
