MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the stage of recording of evidence in FIR No.477/1996 under Sections 51, 63, 68A of The Copyright Act, 1957 registered at Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi on 24th November, 1996, petitioner-accused had filed an application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. for dropping of proceedings arising out of this FIR by raising plea of limitation. Above-said application of petitioner stands rejected by trial court vide impugned order of 16th July, 2010 while observing that at the stage of hearing on the charge, issue of delay in taking cognizance was not urged and the plea of locus was considered and the said order was challenged by way of revision petition, which was dismissed by the learned revisional court vide order of 27th April, 2009 in which there is no reference to the plea of limitation and the said order had attained finality. On the afore-noted reasoning, petitioner's application raising plea of limitation has been dismissed by the trial court vide impugned order.

(2.) In this petition, composite challenge raised is not only to the impugned order but also to FIR of this case registered in November, 1996, to order of 7th October, 2005 vide which cognizance of the offences in question was taken against petitioner and to order of 11th January, 2008 framing charges against petitioner and to revisional court's order of 27th April, 2009 by raising plea of limitation. At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner had submitted that the offences in question were purportedly committed in the year 1996 but the cognizance of these offences has been taken by trial court in the year 2005 i.e. beyond a period of three years and so continuance of proceedings arising out of the FIR in question is an abuse of process of the court and so, these proceedings ought to be quashed. To contend so, reliance was placed by learned counsel for petitioner upon decisions in Moti Pathak and Ors. V. State of U.P., 1988 2 Crimes 659; Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran and Anr., 1990 Supp1 SCC 121and Ashok Anaraj Jain and Anr. V. State of Karnataka, 1997 CrLJ 1261.

(3.) To support the impugned order (Annexure-J) and to seek dismissal of this petition, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent-State had submitted during the course of hearing that against revisional court's order of 27th April, 2009, petitioner had preferred Crl.M.C. No.1911/2009 which was withdrawn by petitioner vide order of 6th July, 2009 (Annexure-I) wherein principal contention of petitioner has been noted and it is pertinent to take notice of the fact that even before a coordinate Bench of this Court, plea of limitation was not taken by petitioner in Crl.M.C. No. 1911/2009.