PARMOD BAGGA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On a complaint filed by Ms. Madhu Bagga, wife of Dr.Ashok Bagga, charge under Sections 498-A/406/34 IPC has been framed against Dr.Ashok Bagga as well as certain other persons. These persons include the petitioners as well, who are two brothers and sister respectively of Dr.Ashok Bagga. The learned MM had passed order dated 18.7.2002 framing the charge against the the accused under Sections 498-A/34 IPC. This order shows that no charge under Section 406 IPC was framed. However, thereafter, vide orders dated 15.11.2003, charge under Section 406 IPC was also framed. The petitioners challenged this order dated 15.11.2003 by filing a revision petition before the learned ASJ. The ground of challenge was that there were no allegations against them insofar as Section 406 IPC is concerned. The argument primarily was that they have been residing separately from their brother Dr. Ashok Bagga and were never entrusted with any dowry articles/stridhan, etc. The learned ASJ vide his orders dated 18.11.2004 observed that there was force in the arguments of the petitioners, however, he still dismissed the petition as time barred on the ground that cause of action had arisen on 18.7.2002, when the charge was framed in the first instance, and the period of limitation is to be counted from that date and not from 15.11.2003, when fresh charge was framed. He, in fact, doubted the wisdom of the learned MM as to why the learned MM framed fresh charge on 15.11.2003. In these circumstances, the revision petition of the petitioners was dismissed as time barred and challenging this order the present petition is filed.

(2.) At the outset, I may state that even from the FIR or the charge sheet, no case against the petitioners herein is made out under Section 406 IPC.

(3.) As mentioned above, even the learned ASJ accepted this position. Therefore, the question is only as to whether the petition could have been dismissed as time barred. I fail to appreciate the reasoning given by the learned ASJ in this behalf. The limitation for filing revision petition is counted from 18.7.2002 when, indubitably, vide order dated 18.7.2002 no charge under Section 406 IPC was framed against the petitioners. Order of charge dated 18.7.2002 is only under Sections 498-A/34 IPC. Therefore, as there was no charge framed under Section 406 IPC against the petitioners on 18.7.2002, there was no cause of grievance for the petitioners as far as order dated 18.7.2002 is concerned. The cause of action for filing the revision petition arose only when fresh charge was framed on 15.11.2003 by adding provisions of Section 406 IPC as well. Thus, limitation had to be counted from 15.11.2003 and it is not in dispute that once the limitation period is to be counted from this date, the revision petition filed by the petitioners was well within time.