Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1886 (RAJ)

Abdul Sattar v. State Of Rajasthan

2017-08-22

SABINA

body2017
JUDGMENT Sabina, J. - Petitioner has filed this petition under section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging the order dated 17.10.2014 and seeking quashing of the FIR No. 444/1991 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 147, 148 & 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that FIR in question was registered in October 1991. Till date challan has not been presented in the court. Hence, the criminal proceedings arising out of the FIR in question were liable to be quashed. Learned counsel has submitted that for offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860, maximum punishment was imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or a fine which may extend to Rupees one thousand or with both. Maximum punishment for offence under Section 147 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years. Maximum punishment for offence under Section 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 was for imprisonment which may extend to three years. As per section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, trial court could have taken cognizance of the matter within three years. However, till date challan has not been presented against the petitioner. Petitioner had applied for a passport. Petitioner is not being issued the passport in view of the registration of FIR in question against the petitioner. 3. Learned state counsel has opposed the petition. 4. On 20.10.2016, District and Session Judge was directed to enquire into the matter and submit a report as to whether challan had been presented against the petitioner or not. In pursuance to the said order, enquiry was conducted by District and Session Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan. As per the said report, challan has not been presented against the petitioner so far. 5. In pursuance to the said order, enquiry was conducted by District and Session Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan. As per the said report, challan has not been presented against the petitioner so far. 5. Section 147 Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:- "Punishment for rioting.-Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Section 148 Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:- "Rioting, armed with deadly weapon.- Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both." 6. Section 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:- "Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.- Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both." 7. section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 reads as under:- Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in subsection (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only 1. Provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain economic offences, see the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 (12 of 1974), section 2 end Sch. (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) 1 For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 8. (3) 1 For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment. 8. Thus, as per the combined reading of the above provisions, trial court could take cognizance of the offence within three years of the commission of the offence. In the present case, FIR was registered on 19.10.1991. However, till date, challan has not been presented in the court. Hence, now after a lapse of more than twenty six years, trial court cannot take cognizance of the offence in view of section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 9. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Criminal proceedings in pursuance to FIR No. 444/1991 registered at Police Station Shastri Nagar, District Jaipur for offence under Sections 147, 148 & 323 Indian Penal Code, 1860 and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom against the petitioner are quashed.