9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Challenge to summoning and charging under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, based on limitation period. 2. Failure of the Magistrate to settle the question of limitation at the pre-cognizance stage. 3. Application of Section 473, Criminal Procedure Code, for extending the period of limitation. 4. Quashing of summoning and charging orders due to lack of jurisdiction. 5. Consideration of whether the complaint should be dismissed as being beyond limitation. Analysis: 1. The petition challenged the summoning and charging of the petitioner under Section 500, Indian Penal Code, due to the Magistrate taking cognizance of the offence beyond the limitation period. The offence was committed on May 20, 1975, with the trial ending in acquittal on February 11, 1980. The complaint should have been filed within three years of the offence, making it beyond the limitation period. 2. The petitioner's counsel argued that the Magistrate failed to address the limitation issue at the pre-cognizance stage, as the complaint was beyond limitation from the date of the defamatory material in the First Information Report. The respondent's counsel relied on Section 473, Criminal Procedure Code, for extending the period of limitation in the interest of justice, but no formal application was made for such extension. 3. The Magistrate's failure to consider the limitation issue at the pre-cognizance stage rendered the proceedings without jurisdiction. The summoning and charging orders were quashed on this basis. The petitioner's counsel contended that the complaint itself should be dismissed as being beyond limitation, citing a precedent where the Supreme Court quashed a similar order due to the complainant not seeking the benefit of Section 473. 4. It was argued that keeping the complaint pending, considering the significant time elapsed since the offence, would be futile. The complainant's failure to explain the delay from the correct starting point of limitation and the lack of justification for reviving the old matter for private vendetta were highlighted. The petition was allowed, with the proceedings quashed and the complaint dismissed. 5. The judgment emphasized the need to end litigation at a certain point, especially when the delay in filing the complaint was not adequately explained and there was no justification for reviving the matter after a significant period had passed. The dismissal of the complaint was deemed appropriate in the interest of justice and to prevent the misuse of legal proceedings for personal vendettas.
|
