Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1659 (RAJ)

RADHA DEVI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2017-07-26

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2017
ORDER : Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. The petitioner has preferred this criminal misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 for quashing of proceedings pending against the petitioner in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore, (Now Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate), in regular criminal case No. 518/2009 for offence under Section 3(1)(6) Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 and against that order dated 06.08.2009 by which cognizance of the offence was taken on complaint. 2. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that in the present case in dispute an agricultural land situated in Village Naldhra within the jurisdiction of Police Station Sarwana was sold by its Khatedar through a registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner on 18.07.2007. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(6) of the Act of 1961 vide order dated 06.08.2009. 3. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the offence is punishable with one year of imprisonment and therefore, as per section 468(b) of Cr.P.C., 1973 the complaint was barred by limitation and the court could not have taken cognizance after a period of one year. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Sainath v. State of Rajasthan passed in S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 2390/2016 decided by Rajasthan High Court on 23.11.2016. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has fairly conceded that similar matters came up before the Rajasthan High Court and the court has quashed the criminal proceedings being barred by limitation. 6. I have considered the rival contentions and have perused the judgment on which the petitioner has placed reliance. The facts of the present case are akin to the one which was before the High Court in Sainath v. State (supra), the cognizance in this case has been taken after a period of more than two years. The offence in this case is punishable with one year imprisonment, the court therefore, was in error in taking cognizance after a period of one year. 7. In view of the same, the impugned order taking cognizance against the petitioner dated 06.08.2009 as well as the entire proceedings in Regular Criminal Case No. 518/2009 pending before Judicial Magistrate, Sanchore (now Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) against the petitioner are hereby quashed. 8. The misc. petition is accordingly allowed.