Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 191 (RAJ)

Veena Bajaj v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-22

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2020
ORDER : SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner, by way of criminal misc. petitions, challenges the cognizance taken by the competent Court on the ground that as the cognizance has been taken on 11.12.2013 while the FIR was lodged on 26.4.2010, the cognizance is barred by limitation as provided under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. 2. Learned counsel submits that as the offence under Section 498-A IPC is punishable by three years imprisonment, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. would apply for taking cognizance under Section 498-A IPC as well as for offence under Section 406 IPC. Learned counsel replies on the judgment in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Versus Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr. reported in 2005 (1) SCC 122 . 3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew and Ors. Versus Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director K.M. Cherian and Ors. reported in 2014 (2) SCC 62 , in the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. for computing the period of limitation is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date of institution of prosecution of criminal proceedings and therefore, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not have application. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 5. In the judgment in Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court has held as under: "15. The learned Magistrate has issued process in respect of offence under Section 418 IPC. The punishment provided for said offence is imprisonment for three years. The period of limitation in terms of Section 468(2)(c) is 3 years. That being so, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. Section 473 of the Code provides for extension of period in certain cases. This power can be exercised only when the Court is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Order of learned Magistrate does not even refer to either Section 468 or Section 473 of the Code. High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit by limitation. Order of learned Magistrate does not even refer to either Section 468 or Section 473 of the Code. High Court clearly erred in holding that the complaint was not hit by limitation. As noted above, there was not even a reference that the letter dated 5.12.2001 was in response to the letter of complainant dated 24.11.2001. The factual position clearly shows that the complaint was nothing but a sheer abuse of the process of law and this is a case where the power under Section 482 should have been exercised. The High Court unfortunately did not take note of the guiding principles as laid down in Bhajan Singh's case (supra), thereby rendering the judgment indefensible. The judgment of the High Court is set aside, the proceedings initiated by the complaint lodged are quashed. The appeal is allowed." 6. A Five Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew (supra) examined the law with regard to the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and after discussing the law at length held as under: "30. As we have already noted in reaching this conclusion, light can be drawn from legal maxims. Legal maxims are referred to in Bharat Kale, Japani Sahoo and Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt.). The object of the criminal law is to punish perpetrators of crime. This is in tune with the well known legal maxim 'nullum tempus aut locus occurit regi', which means that a crime never dies. At the same time, it is also the policy of law to assist the vigilant and not the sleepy. This is expressed in the Latin maxim 'vigilantibus et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt'. Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provides limitation period for certain types of offences for which lesser sentence is provided draws support from this maxim. But, even certain offences such as Section 384 or 465 of the Indian Penal Code, which have lesser punishment may have serious social consequences. Provision is, therefore, made for condonation of delay. Treating date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of proceedings as the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code is supported by the legal maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' which means that the act of court shall prejudice no man. Provision is, therefore, made for condonation of delay. Treating date of filing of complaint or date of initiation of proceedings as the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 of the Code is supported by the legal maxim 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' which means that the act of court shall prejudice no man. It bears repetition to state that the court's inaction in taking cognizance i.e. court's inaction in applying mind to the suspected offence should not be allowed to cause prejudice to a diligent complainant. Chapter XXXVI thus presents the interplay of these three legal maxims. Provisions of this Chapter, however, are not interpreted solely on the basis of these maxims. They only serve as guiding principles. 51. 41. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. We further hold that Bharat Kale which is followed in Japani Sahoo lays down the correct law. Krishna Pillai will have to be restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure." 7. In view of the aforesaid, if the facts of the present case are examined, then it is clear that the criminal complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 406 and 498A IPC will have to be examined on facts for the question of limitation. The complaint has been filed on 26.4.2010 and the allegations levelled in the complaint are in relation to the incident, which occurred in 2010 itself. Thus, it cannot be said that the complaint filed by the complainant was beyond limitation. Hence, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. shall not be attracted in the present case and the cognizance and subsequent order of framing of the charges would, therefore, not be said to be in any manner illegal and vitiated on the ground of limitation. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the criminal misc. petitions are wholly misconceived and the same are accordingly dismissed. 9. All the pending applications stand dismissed.