Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 538 (KAR)

IMAM HUSSAINSAB v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-07-11

M.S.RAJENDRA PRASAD

body2003
RAJENDRA PRASAD, J. ( 1 ) THOUGH the matter is listed for admission, by consent of parties, the same is heard on merits and disposed of by the following order. ( 2 ) THIS petition by the accused filed under Section 482 Cr PC is directed against the order dated 2. 12. 2002 passed in Crl R. P. No. 1627 2001 on the file of the II Addl Sessions Judge Dharwad, wherein the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the revision petition and confirmed the order of the learned Magistrate dated 2. 6. 2000 passed in C. C. No. 223/2000, in taking cognizance against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 447, 504 r/w 34 I. P. C. , challenging the legality and propriety of the proceedings. ( 3 ) THE Court has heard the arguments of both sides. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for petitioners strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the complaint presented before the learned Magistrate was barred by time and the learned magistrate could not have taken cognizance of the offences against the petitioners. There has been inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the same has not been explained. The Courts below had not taken these aspects into consideration. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing the revision petition. ( 5 ) ON the contrary, the learned Government Pleader strenuously submitted his arguments fully supporting the orders of the Courts below. ( 6 ) THE learned Counsel for R-2 strenuously contended that the material on record clearly shows that the orders impugned are legal and proper. The Courts below had appreciated the facts in issue in the right perspective and had arrived at right conclusion. The petitioners have not made out any grounds to allow the petition. Hence, the learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. ( 7 ) THE Court has perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the Bar. ( 8 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that on 26. 10. Hence, the learned Counsel prayed for dismissal of the petition. ( 7 ) THE Court has perused the material on record and has given its anxious thoughts over the rival contentions raised at the Bar. ( 8 ) FROM the material on record, it is seen that on 26. 10. 1996, R-2 herein submitted a private complaint under Section 200 Cr P. C. before the J. M. F. C II Court, Dharawad, and the same had been referred for investigation and it appears, the police, after investigation, had submitted 'b' report and thereafter the sworn statements of the complainant and the witnesses came to be recorded and on 2. 6. 2000, the learned Magistrate had passed an order taking cognizance against the accused petitioners for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 447, 504 r/w 34 I. P. C. Feeling aggrieved by the order of taking cognizance, the accused had preferred a revision petition before the learned Sessions Judge in Cril. R. P. No. 162/2001. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge had dismissed the revision petition. Again, feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have come up before this Court with the instant petition under Section 482 Cr. P. C. ( 9 ) THE bone of contention of the learned Counsel for petitioners is that the learned Magistrate was not at all justified in taking cognizance of the offences against the petitioners as the complaint was barred by limitation. The learned Counsel contends that maximum period of three years is provided for taking cognizance of the offences and by the time the learned Magistrate had taken cognizance of the offences, the period of three years had expired and the limitation has to be computed in the light of the provisions of Section 469 Cr. P. C. On the contrary, the learned Counsel for R-2 relied upon a decision of this Court reported in 1989 (2) Kar l. J. 95 in support of his contentions, Wherein this Court has held that the date of filing of the complaint has to be taken into consideration and not the date of taking cognizance for the purpose of computation of limitation. In the case on hand, patently, the complaint had been filed within 30 days from the date of alleged offence. In the case on hand, patently, the complaint had been filed within 30 days from the date of alleged offence. From the material on record, it is seen that though there had been delay in filing the complaint, the same had been presented before the learned Magistrate within three years from the date of commission of the offence. In other words, as on the date of presentation of the complaint, the complaint filed was well within time. The material on record shows that the complaint was referred to the police for investigation, that the police had filed 'b' report and later on, after examination of the complaint and his witnesses, cognizance had been taken. If the period of three years has to be calculated from the date of offence till the date of taking cognizance, the period of three years would have been expired. It is settled principle of law that once the complainant sets the criminal law in motion, he is under no other legal obligation except to proceed in accordance with the directions of the learned Magistrate. If for any reason there is delay in taking cognizance by the learned Magistrate, the valuable right of the complainant cannot be vexed. If the Court were to accept the arguments of the learned Counsel for petitioners, in the opinion of this Court, it would virtually defeat the object of the legislation. Moreover, this Court, on an earlier occasion, has dealt with the similar matter and has held negativing the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for petitioners now. In other words, the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for petitioners has already been considered and negatived by the Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the orders impugned are legal and proper and the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same. ( 10 ) IN view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court holds that the petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. However, it is open for the accused to make their submissions on the merits of the case before the learned Magistrate while framing the charge excepting the point of limitation. With these observations and for the reasons stated above, the petition stands dismissed. --- *** --- .