Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1313 (PNJ)

Ram Murti v. Madan Gopal

2005-12-21

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The prayer in this petition is for quashing of the criminal complaint (Annexure P-1) which has been filed by the respondent against the petitioners under Sections 500/504/342/211/34 IPC read with Section 357-B Cr.PC as well as the order dated 17.3.1997 (Annexure P-2) whereby the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Sections 500/504/ 342 OPC. 2. Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto, the respondent put in appearance. However, no reply has been filed so far though last opportunity to file reply was granted on 19.8.2004 and the case was adjourned to 10.9.2004. 3. Though various grounds have been taken up in support of the relief sought in this petition, however, in reference to the allegations contained in the impugned complaint, it is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 11.8.1988 whereas the impugned complaint was filed on 3.2.1995 in which the petitioners were summoned vide order dated 17.3.1997 (Annexure P-2). Reliance has also been placed upon the order dated 27.9.2002 (Annexure P-5) passed in Criminal Misc. No. 9629-M of 1999 whereby the impugned complaint qua one of the petitioners co-accused (Pawan Kumar Gupta) was quashed by this Court on the ground that the incident relates to the year 1988 and the respondent did not come present to contest the case despite the fact that the petition filed by the said Pawan Kumar Gupta remained pending in this Court for about three years. For an offence under Section 342 IPC, the maximum sentence prescribed is one year imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- whereas for offences under Sections 500 and/or 504 IPC, the maximum sentence is two years imprisonment, with or without fine. It is contended that in terms of Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., the impugned complaint could be filed within three years as the offences for which the petitioners have been summoned are punishable for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. 4. As pointed out earlier, the alleged incident which led to filing of the impugned complaint, took place on 11.8.1988 whereas the complaint has been filed on 3.2.1995, i.e., much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 4. As pointed out earlier, the alleged incident which led to filing of the impugned complaint, took place on 11.8.1988 whereas the complaint has been filed on 3.2.1995, i.e., much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Despite grant of more than one opportunities by this Court, the respondent has failed to explain as to how the learned trial Court could take cognizance of the impugned complaint despite the same having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. 5. For the reasons aforementioned, the stand taken by the petitioners that the impugned complaint has been filed after the expiry of limitation period, is deemed to have been admitted by the respondent. As a necessary corollary, there can be no exception but to hold that the impugned complaint is an abuse of the process of law. 6. Consequently, this petition is allowed and the impugned complaint (Annexure P-1) as well as summoning order dated 17.3.1997 (Annexure P-2) are hereby quashed. Disposed of.