2003 (8) TMI 568 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Legality, validity, and correctness of the impugned order
2. Challenge to the criminal proceedings including the order dated 4.2.2000
3. Bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code
4. Power of the Chief Judicial Magistrate to condone delay under Section 473 of the Code
5. Interpretation of stay orders passed by the High Court
6. Cognizance taken by the Magistrate long after the limitation period
7. Error in upholding taking cognizance when barred by Section 468(2) of the Code

Analysis:

1. The appellants questioned the legality, validity, and correctness of the impugned order regarding the criminal proceedings initiated against them. The High Court was approached to quash the proceedings, including the order dated 4.2.2000, which took cognizance of offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code based on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 2.

2. The main contention raised was the bar of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the charge-sheet was filed after a period of three years. The Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) had initially held that the limitation period had lapsed but later condoned the delay under Section 473 of the Code based on the petition filed by the respondent No. 2.

3. The High Court, while acknowledging some errors in the CJM's order, dismissed the petition filed by the appellants, stating that the CJM had the power to condone the delay under Section 473 of the Code. The appellants argued that the CJM and the High Court erred in not quashing the proceedings due to the delay in taking cognizance.

4. The dispute centered on the interpretation of the stay orders passed by the High Court in earlier proceedings. The CJM had taken cognizance long after the three-year limitation period, citing the stay of proceedings till 5.10.1999. However, the High Court found that the orders dated 11.11.1994 and 6.2.1995 clearly indicated that the stay had been lifted, and there was no valid reason to condone the delay under Section 473 of the Code.

5. Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that the CJM and the High Court had committed a serious error in upholding the cognizance taken when it was clearly barred by Section 468(2) of the Code. The impugned order was set aside, and the criminal proceedings in the court of CJM, Patna, were quashed.