Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 2349 (RAJ)

Hansa Ben v. State of Rajasthan

2021-12-16

VINIT KUMAR MATHUR

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. This criminal misc. petition under section 482 CrPC is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings in Cr. Regular Case No.499/2012 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Chouhtan, District Barmer for the offence punishable under section 3(3)(6) of Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of 1961'). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the complaint filed by SDO, Gudamalani, District Barmer against the petitioners regarding the aforesaid offence is ambiguous. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said complaint is not maintainable as it is time barred because the alleged offence is said to have been committed on 05.07.2004 whereas the complaint thereof was filed on 19.01.2008. 3. It is submitted that maximum punishment for the offence under section 3(3)(6) of the Act of 1961 is one year but the complaint was filed after about 4 years of the alleged incident and, therefore, the trial court erred in taking cognizance against the petitioners on a time barred complaint. 4. In support of the above contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the orders of this Court dated 02.04.2013, 15.01.2014, 29.01.2015, 22.07.2015, 19.01.2017 and 23.07.2018 passed in S.B. Cr.Misc. Pet. Nos.1568/2008, 2304/2013, 1438/2014, 1962/2015, 4010/2016 and in 1500/2018 respectively. He has contended that this Court has quashed the proceedings against the persons for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(6) of the Act of 1961 on the ground that the same were time barred and the complaint was also vague and non-descriptive. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the said position. 6. In the present case, the sale-deed was executed in favour of the petitioners on 05.07.2004, whereas the complaint against them was filed on 19.01.2008 and the cognizance was taken by the trial court on 10.02.2009. 7. It is not in dispute that the punishment provided for the offence punishable under section 3(3)(6) of the Act of 1961 is one year. It is noticed that it is not mentioned in the complaint that on which date the petitioners entered into restricted area and the lower court did not take into consideration the delay caused in filing the complaint and took cognizance against the petitioners after the period of limitation as provided under clause(b) of sub-section (2) of section 468 CrPC. 8. It is noticed that it is not mentioned in the complaint that on which date the petitioners entered into restricted area and the lower court did not take into consideration the delay caused in filing the complaint and took cognizance against the petitioners after the period of limitation as provided under clause(b) of sub-section (2) of section 468 CrPC. 8. In view of above facts and the decisions rendered by this Court in the aforesaid identical matters, this criminal misc. petition is allowed and the proceedings of Cr. Regular Case No.499/2012 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate Chouhtan, District Barmer against the petitioners are dropped. 9. Stay petition is disposed of.