SHRENIKKUMAR SANKALCHAND SHAH Vs. KAUSHALYABEN BHAGATSINH DAMOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE present for the respondent except the learned APP.

(2.) THE petitioners have invoked the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Code") for praying to set aside the order dated 2.9.1998 of learned Metropolitan Magistrate below application Exh.6 in Criminal Case No.716/96. That application Exh.6 was made under section 239 of the Code for discharge. The criminal complaint appears to have been initiated by the complaint of respondent No.1 alleging offences punishable under sections 406 and 114 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the basis that the petitioners were entrusted with old ornaments of gold for the purpose of conversion to new ornaments and the petitioners were alleged to have failed in delivering new ornaments as agreed. The complaint was initially registered as an inquiry case and, after recording statement on oath of the complainant, it had come on record that the ornaments were alleged to have been entrusted to the petitioner on 15.9.1987 and not on 14.8.1995 as stated in the complaint. The application Exh.6 was, therefore, made by the petitioner for discharging them on the ground that the complaint was barred by the provisions of limitation as prescribed in section 468 of the Code.

(3.) LEARNED Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad has, after consideration of the submissions of the parties, held in the impugned order that charge was framed on 1.10.1997 and documentary evidence was produced in support of the complaint. Pending cross examination of the complainant, the petitioners had made application Exh.6. In such circumstances and in view of the admitted mistake in mentioning the date in the complaint, the bar of limitation was not required to be invoked, particularly when the complainant was stated to have made several attempts at recovering the ornaments. The court relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh (AIR 1996 SC 1393) and judgment of the Delhi High Court to hold that lodging of FIR could be late due to a variety of reasons, particularly reluctance of the prosecutrix or her family members to go to police and complain about the incident.