ANUPAMABEN SHAILESHBHAI SHAH Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this present application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the original accused of Criminal Case No.1996 of 2007 has prayed to quash the said criminal case as well as the order dated 6.3.2007 passed by learned Metropolitan Magistrate Court No.22, Ahmedabad.

(2.) The brief facts of the case of the petitioner are as under : -

(3.) Learned Advocate Mr.Apurva Vakil appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the premium was accepted by the petitioner on 12.3.2005, while the complaint was lodged by respondent No.2 on 5.3.2007, upon which the order was passed by the learned Magistrate of issuing summons on 6.3.2007. Now the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 19(2) of the Rent Act is of six months and with or without fine. In view of the maximum punishment which can be imposed for the offence under Section 19(2) of the Act, the limitation provided under Section 468(2)(b) of the Code is of one year and, therefore, the complaint was barred by limitation. It was further submitted that, in view of this bar, the learned Magistrate ought not to have entertained the complaint and not to have issued summons. The complaint itself is time barred, and if it is continued to be proceeded further, it would be an abuse of process of law. He has further submitted that the complaint was filed after almost about two year with some ulterior motive. It would be total harassment for the petitioner if a legally barred complaint is continued to be tried by the trial Court. He has further submitted that, by way of filing affidavit -in -reply in the present proceedings, the respondent No.2 - original complainant has tried to explain delay in approaching the learned Magistrate which is not reflected in the complaint. He has further submitted that, in support of his contention about explanation with regard to delay in approaching the trial Court, opponent No.2 has not produced any documentary evidence except an affidavit filed by the Advocate who had appeared in the trial Court for the opponent No.2. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the case of PRAKASHBHAI KANJIBHAI SOLANKI v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER reported at 26(1) GLR 162 and in the case of M. S. UPADHYAYA v. MISTRIL JAYANTILAL HARGOVINDDAS AND ANOTHER reported at 26(2) GLR 1108. Relying upon these two judgments, he has submitted that the case in hand is squarely covered under these two decisions and, therefore, the complaint as well as the order passed by the trial Court may be quashed and set aside.