V. PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in C.C. No. 172 of 2012 is the petitioner before this Court. He was charged for the offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 504(A) IPC in respect of the occurrence that had allegedly taken place on 17.06.2009. The criminal law was set in motion against the accused by receiving the complaint on 18.06.2009. Investigation was commenced and was completed and final report was filed on 22.11.2012 and the case was taken cognizance on the same day and process was issued to the accused to face trial for the offences as above referred to. On his appearance, the accused filed discharge petition mainly on the ground that final report is filed and the case is taken cognizance against the accused beyond the period of limitation specified under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and without expressly disclosing in the order taking cognizance about the condonation of the period of limitation in the manner as contemplated under Section 473 Cr.P.C. It is the case of the petitioner/accused in the discharge petition that the offences charged against the accused are punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years and the trial Court ought to have taken cognizance of the same within three months from the date of the offence and as the same was admittedly taken cognizance with the delay of above 155 days, the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner is bad in law and is liable to be terminated and the accused is liable to be discharged from the charges.

(2.) In the counter filed by the respondent police, the delay in filing the final report and taking cognizance is not denied, but sought to be explained as due to collection of materials, particularly, medical records.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that as the offences to be tried are summary in nature the ground raised herein is not legally acceptable. The trial Court has also while doing so, did not apply the ratio laid down in the following judgments cited on the petitioner's side:-