SIDDHARTH TRIPATHI Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant, by means of this application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has prayed for quashing the proceedings arising out of charge sheet No. 5 dated 31.10.2011 filed on 01.11.2011 bearing case Crime No. RC/DST/2010/S/0007 under Section 323 IPC C.B.I. /STF/ New Delhi Vs. Sidddhartha Tripathi and another, pending in the court of Special Judicial Magistrate (CBI), Lucknow and also to quash the impugned summoning order dated 25.11.2011 passed in the aforementioned case, whereby the trial court took cognizance of the case after expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

(2.) It is argued that in this case, the trial court has taken cognizance after expiry of the period of limitation. Since the offence under Section 323 IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of one year, therefore, in view of provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the said offence was one year and the cognizance was taken after expiry of the period of limitation. It is further submitted that in this case no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was moved on behalf of prosecution at the time of filing of the charge sheet, therefore, the delay could not have been condoned.

(3.) The second argument is that since the charge sheet has been filed for a non-cognizable offence, therefore, in view of the explanation of Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. the procedure of a complaint case ought to have been followed and cognizance ought to have been taken only under section 190 (1) a Cr.P.C..