LOKESH TOKAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., petitioners/accused seek setting aside of the charges framed against them under Sections 323/341/34 IPC on 14th February, 2002 by an Addl.Sessions Judge, New Delhi.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this petition, in brief, are these. Bhagwan Dev Tokas made a complaint to the police alleging that on 2 8/04/1999 at about 9.45 AM, when he reached the house after performing night duty, his wife told that Lokesh Kumar (petitioner No.1) and his two brothers-in-law were demolishing their other house No. 352-R, Munirka. Complainant went to that house Where he found Lokesh Kumar and his two brothers-in-law present and roof of house damaged. On enquiry, why had they damaged the roof of house, said persons started abusing and beating the complainant. When the complainant rushed to the lane in order to save himself, Lokesh Kumar stopped him on the way and he alongwith hie two brothers-in-law gave him leg and fist blows due to which he received injuries. On this complaint FIR No.142/99 under Sections 323/341/34 IPC was registered and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.

(3.) . Short submission advanced by Sh.Panna Lal Syngal for petitioners was that offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment for 1 year while offence under Section 341 with imprisonment for 1 month. Alleged occurrence had taken place on 28/04/1999 and on the basis of charge sheet filed beyond the period of 1 year on 12/08/2000, the trial court could not have taken cognizance of the offences nor charges framed under Sections 323/341/34 IPC against the petitioners on 14th February, 2002. In support of submission, reliance was placed on the decisions in Surinder. Mohan Vikal Vs. Ascharaj Lal Choera. (1978) 2 SCC 403 and Stats of Punjab Vs. Sarwan Singh, [1981] 3 S.C.R. 349. On the other hand, contention advanced by Sh.Sunil K.Kapoor for State was that the petitioners had been avoiding their arrest and petitioner No.1 could be arrested on 9/09/1999 while petitioner No.2 on 30/07/2000. Under Section 470(4) Cr.P.C., the time during which the petitioners avoided their arrest, shall have to be excluded for the purpose of computing period of limitation prescribed in clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and taking the date of 9/09/1999 on which date petitioner No.1 was arrested, charge sheet filed on 12/08/2000 was within limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision in Arun Vyas & Anr. Vs. Anita Vyas, JT 1999 (4) 421. Section 468 Cr.P.C. which is material, runs as under:-