Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 227 (JK)

Chander Bhan Singh v. State of J&K

2022-05-09

SINDHU SHARMA

body2022
JUDGMENT : (Sindhu Sharma, J.) 1. The petitioners have called in question the order dated 06.02.2019 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu in File No. 05/Revision titled 'Chander Bhan Singh & Anr. v. State of J&K & Ors.' against the order dated 20.10.2017 passed by the learned Forest Magistrate, Jammu refusing to take cognizance of the offences under sections 323, 341/34 RPC as the offences were allegedly committed by the accused on 04.07.2014 and the challan was produced on 20.03.2017. 2. The order dated 20.10.2017, passed by 1st Additional Munsiff Forest Magistrate, Jammu reads as under: "As the perusal of challan reveals that offence stated against accused persons are 323, 341/34 RPC, same carries punishment of imprisonment for term not exceeding more than one year and this challan been presented on 20/03/2017. The delay in presenting the challan has also been not explained and as such there is a bar of taking cognizance after the lapse of period of limitation. Accordingly this challan is dismissed in view of same being presented after the period of limitation. Bail and surety bonds of accused persons stand discharged. File is disposed of. Consign to records after completion." 3. The learned Forest Magistrate, Jammu invoked the provision of Section 538-B Cr.P.C. and dismissed the challan as the occurrence took place on 04.07.2014 and challan was presented before the court on 20.03.2017 after the expiry of the period of limitation. The provision of Section 538-B which provide for the bar of limitation of taking cognizance after the period of limitation reads as under: "Section 538-B Bar against taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in the Code, no court, shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in its sub-section (2) after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of 1imitation shall be: (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years." 4. The fact of the matter is that the FIR Nos. 85 of 2014 and 86 of 2014 were registered in police station Jhajjar Kotli for one and the same occurrence. The fact of the matter is that the FIR Nos. 85 of 2014 and 86 of 2014 were registered in police station Jhajjar Kotli for one and the same occurrence. The case was registered in police station Jhajjar Kotli on 05.07.2014 under sections 341/323/34 of RPC but the challan was produced on 20.03.2017, and the same was dismissed on the ground that it was presented after the period of limitation that is more than three years after the FIR was registered. While the punishment provided under section 341 is only one month and fine but under section 323 or the RPC, the punishment provided is one year and the fine. Why the prosecution took more than three years to complete the investigation has not been explained, in fact, there is no application filed on behalf of die prosecution for condoning the delay. The prosecution could have explained the delay in the report submitted under section 173 of Cr.P.C. but decided to remain silent. 5. The petitioners first filed a revision under section 435 of the State Cr.P.C. which has been dismissed by the 2 nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu on 06.02.2019 as the further revision is not permissible under law. The petitioners have challenged the order under section 561-A of the State Cr.P.C. which has been since repealed and revised by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 6. The learned 2nd Additional Session Judge, Jammu vide order dated 06.02.2019, dismissed the revision by holding as under: “11. Learned trial court has rightly come to the conclusion that the offences alleged against the accused person does not carry imprisonment for a term not exceeding more than one year and so, the charge sheet was required to be presented against the accused persons after the date of occurrence 04.07.2014, within one year, which has been presented after the period of expiry of period of limitation and no plausible grounds have been indicated in the charge sheet for filing delayed charge sheet. So, there was no option for the learned trial court but to pass the order impugned. Learned trial court has further calculated the period of limitation in right perspective and the order impugned cannot be faulted with on this court. 12. So, there was no option for the learned trial court but to pass the order impugned. Learned trial court has further calculated the period of limitation in right perspective and the order impugned cannot be faulted with on this court. 12. The plea of LC for the petitioner that order of Hon'ble High Court passed on 29.11.2017 has been rendered infructuous without affording opportunity to the petitioners is again not sustainable because the said order was not passed before the order impugned dated 20.10.2017 was passed by learned trial court and it was for the petitioners or their counsels or any one of the parties to file application before the Court of Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate to consolidate both the cases together but that option was not also exercised by the complainant or any aggrieved person. 13. ............ 14. For the reasons cited herein above the order impugned has been passed perfectly and does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity and impropriety and thus need not to be interfered with. 15. The order impugned sustains the revision petition filed by the petitioners is dismissed being devoid of merits. It be consigned to records after its due compilation. Record of the trial court along with copy of this order be sent to the trail court.” 7. It is well settled that any interference in the impugned order can only be, if the same has resulted in abuse of the process of the law. However, in the present case, the police has registered a case for causing simple hurt for which the police should not have assumed commission of offence under section 341 RPC. So there is no abuse of process of law. Moreover, the revision petition should have been filed by the State or the complainant but the petitioners are not the complainant, as such, were not competent to maintain the revision petition. None of the petitioners had approached the Court for delay in production of the challan, as such, they have no right to question the delay. There is no sufficient grounds for invoking the exercise of this Court in its inherent powers under section 561-A Cr.P.C. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this petition is dismissed being without any merit along with connected application(s).