Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2651 (RAJ)

Kamru v. State of Rajasthan

2008-12-03

MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA

body2008
Honble SHARMA, J.—The brief facts of the case are that complainant filed a complaint alleging therein that on 16.10.1995 at 10.00 A.M. his father Hafiz Khan was beaten up by the petitioners. When the complainant tried to save his father, the accused persons namely Kamru, Sampat and Kallo came there armed with Lathies. Due to fear of attacking by the accused persons, the complainant entered in his house, but the accused persons were also followed him and entered into his house armed with lathies and started to beat the complainant. It is stated that the accused Kamru inflicted Lathi blow on his head, Sampat Pelted stone as a result of which he has sustained injuries below his eye while Kallo and Saiden gave beatings by legs and fists. It is also alleged that when his brother came for rescue he was also beaten up by the accused. Ultimately, he was saved by Chiman and Manzoor and others. When he went to lodge the report at Police Station it was not accepted by the police and after sub-mitting written report to S.P., a case was registered but the police submitted the FR. 2. The Civil Judge (Jr. Division & Judicial Magistrate, Dholpur disagree with the FR and took cognizance under Section 323 IPC and process was issued to secure the presence of the accused. 3. Thereafter the petitioners appeared before the Magistrate and also filed an application for recalling the order of tacking cognizance but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 5.5.2000. Hence the present revision petition. 4. I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the impugned order passed by the court below. I have also gone through the record of the case available to me. 5. In this revision petition, Mr. Mohammed Rahil Kalam Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has contended that the matter was thoroughly investigated by the police and thereafter the FR was submitted on sound reasons. He further contended that the order of taking cognizance si barred by limitation because the offences in which the cognizance is taken are not punishable more than a period of two years and the limitation for taking the cognizance is three years. It is contended that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 6.10.1995 while the cognizance was taken on 5.5.2000 which is clearly time barred. It is contended that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 6.10.1995 while the cognizance was taken on 5.5.2000 which is clearly time barred. Therefore, the proceedings pending against the petitioners is illegal and liable to be quashed and set-aside. 6. The counsel for the petitioner further contended that the court are not competent to take cognizance beyond the period as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C., that is why the petitioners after putting their appearance filed the application and prayed to recall the order of taking cognizance. But the learned trial court did not recall the order which is completely illegal and deserves to be quashed. 7. Mr. B.N. Sandhu, Public Prosecutor has not opposed the arguments advanced by the counsel for the petitioner. 8. For these reasons, I set-aside the order dated 1.5.2001 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Dvn.) & Judicial Magistrate Dholpur in Cr. Case No. 642/2000. This revision petition is allowed.