SAREGAMA INDIA LTD. Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed the present petition u/s 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of order dated 31st August, 2006 wherein learned M.M. has taken the cognizance and summoned the petitioner as well as for quashing of criminal complaint being case no.513/2006 pending before the Ld. M.M.

(2.) BRIEFLY the case of the petitioner is as under: -

(3.) MR .Jayant Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the complaint filed before the ld.Special M.M. was barred by limitation as the same was instituted much beyond the period of limitation as provided u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.). It is contended that Ld. M.M. while taking cognizance and issuing the summoning order has failed to consider that the complaint filed by the respondent was time barred. It is contended that no application was filed before the Ld. M.M seeking condonation of delay. It is contended that taking cognizance in a complaint instituted after the period of limitation, can be taken only if the prosecution makes a request for condonation of delay or the Court is satisfied with the reasons for the delay and feels that it is in the interests of justice, none of which was done in the present case. In support of his contention, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon (i) State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Tara Dutt and anr: (2000)1 SCC 230; (ii)Anil Nanda vs. State and anr: 2008(104)DRJ154. Learned senior counsel has also relied upon Khalid Akhtar Latif Ahemi vs. The State of Maharashtra: .It is submitted that complaint filed before learned M.M. is silent on this aspect. It is contended that in these circumstances, the learned M.M. could not have taken the cognizance of offence as is done in the present case.