KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEEKING to quash the F. I.R. pertaining to Crime No. 542/2001 on the file of the Inspector of Police, E4 Maduravoyal Police Station, registered for the offence under Section 417 I. P.C. , the petitioner/accused has filed this petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C.

(2.) THE main thrust of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the offence under Section 417 I. P. C. was alleged to have been committed during the period 1995-96 and the complaint lodged on 11. 6. 2001 in pursuance of which, the investigation was commenced in the above crime number, was filed beyond period of limitation and as such, the said complaint has to be quashed in view of the bar contained in Section 468 Cr. P.C.

(3.) IT is settled law as laid down in RAKES H KUMAR JAIN v. STATE THROUGH CBI, NEW DELHI (2000 (3) CRIMES 161 (SC) ), ( ARUN VYAS v. ANITA VYAS (1999 S. C.C. ( Cri ) 629), VANKA RADHAMANOHARI v. VANKA VENKATA REDDY (1993 (3) S. C.C. 4)and BHAGIRATH KANORIA v. STATE OF M.P. (1984 (4) S. C.C. 222) that the complainant or a prosecuting agency has, under law, a right to seek for extension of time under Section 473 Cr. P. C. by satisfying the Magistrate on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay was explainable which was occasioned on account of various bona fide easons. Further, it has been held in SMT. VANKA RADHAMANOHARI v. VANKA VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS (1993 L.W .( Crl.) 233 (SC)) as follows : "in view of S. 473, a Court can take cognizance of an offence not only when it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained, but even in absence of proper explanation if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. "