Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 278 (RAJ)

Shankar Lal S/o Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2006-01-27

H.R.PANWAR

body2006
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant revision petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. is directed against the order dated 14.1.2003 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilara (for short the trial Court") in criminal case No. 101/2002, whereby the trial court framed the charges against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 498A and 323 IPC. 2. Aggrieved by the order framing charges, the petitioners have filed the instant revision petition. The notices have been served upon the complainant - non-petitioner No. 2. Despite service, no one appears for the complainant. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor. Perused the order impugned and record of the trial court. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the occurrence is alleged to have taken place in between the year 1987 to 1991 and the complainant lodged the report after 10 yeas, though no specific date has been mentioned in the complaint that when she was subjected to cruelty in the year 1987, so is the case of year 1991. 5. According to the complainant herself from the year 1992, she has not been residing with the petitioners. According to her own version, she was turned out from her matrimonial home in the year 1992 and it is not the case of the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2 that after leaving the matrimonial home, she was ever subjected to any sort of cruelty or harassment by the petitioners. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a perusal of Section 468 Cr.PC. makes it clear that the proceeding initiated against the petitioners under Section 484A (sic. 498-A) and 323 IPG are barred by limitation-by provisions of Section 468 Cr.PC. Section 498A IPC provides punishment of three years. The period of limitation is three years for the offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Even on perusal of the record, it does not appear as to when and which of the petitioners harassed the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2. 7. Section 498A IPC provides punishment of three years. The period of limitation is three years for the offences which are punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Even on perusal of the record, it does not appear as to when and which of the petitioners harassed the complainant-non-petitioner No. 2. 7. Keeping in view the material on record as also the fact that the occurrence is alleged to be of the year 1987 and without there being any specific date and the month and without there being any specific allegation against any of the petitioners, in my view there is no sufficient material on record to presume that the petitioners have committed the offences for which they have been charged. Even otherwise, from perusal of Section 468 Cr.PC., the proceeding is barred by period of limitation. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed. The order impugned framing charge by the trial court is hereby set aside. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners stand quashed. The stay petition also stands disposed of.Revision allowed - Charges quashed. *******