Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1892 (RAJ)

Om Prakash v. State of Rajasthan

2015-11-16

SANDEEP MEHTA

body2015
JUDGMENT : Sandeep Mehta, J. Heard. 2. Issue notice. Learned Public Prosecutor accepts notice for respondent State. 3. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally and decided. 4. The instant misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing the proceedings of Criminal Regular Case No.804/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore (now Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore) for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(6) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint filed by the S.H.O., P.S. Chitalwana against the petitioner apart from being absolutely vague and non-descriptive regarding the offence, is also hopelessly time barred as the alleged offence is said to have been committed on 8.11.2005 whereas the complaint thereof has been filed on 3.3.2008. He contends that the punishment for alleged offence committed by the petitioner is one year and hence, the complaint which was filed after around three years of the alleged incident was time barred and, thus, the impugned order dated 7.10.2009 whereby, the learned trial court took cognizance against the petitioner is liable to be quashed as the complaint itself is barred by limitation as per Section 468 Cr.P.C. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the order dated 2.4.2013 passed by this Court in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.1502/2010 (Hari Ram v. State of Rajasthan), order dated 15.1.2014 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2304/2013 (Pukh Raj v. State of Rajasthan) and order dated 14.9.2015 passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No.2561/2015 (Navaram v. State of Rajasthan) and contends that this Court has quashed the proceedings of the criminal complaints filed in the above matters in exactly identical factual scenario and thus, the order under challenge in this misc. petition should also be quashed. 7. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in position to dispute the said position. In the present case, the sale deed was executed in favour of the petitioner on 8.11.2005 whereas the complaint for the alleged offence was filed against the petitioner on 3.3.2008 and cognizance taken on 7.10.2009. It is not in dispute that punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(6) of the Act of 1961 is one year only. The complaint doesn't speak of the date on which the petitioner entered the restricted area. It is not in dispute that punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(6) of the Act of 1961 is one year only. The complaint doesn't speak of the date on which the petitioner entered the restricted area. Thus evidently, the complaint apart from being devoid of any specific allegations disclosing the necessary ingredients of the offences was also time barred as ordained by Section 468 Cr.P.C. 8. In view of above fact and in view of the decisions rendered by this Court in identical matters referred to herein supra, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the order taking cognizance dated 7.10.2009 and all further proceedings of criminal regular case No.804/2009 pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore (now Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore) against the petitioner, are quashed. Petition allowed.