HARSHAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Perused records. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by mutual consent of the parties. Being aggrieved by the orders quashing the process under section 494, 495, 415, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 issued against the accused in Criminal Case R.T.C. No. 422/2009 by the Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Court No. 4 Ahmednagar -respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 353/2011 and 2 to 6 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 354/2011- passed in two Criminal Revision Petitions No. 154/2009 and Criminal Revision No. 150/2009 respectively by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, the petitioner / complainant in the said case has preferred these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner / complainant filed a complaint R.T.C. No. 422/2009 in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar alleging commission of offences by the respondent / accused under section 494, 495, 415, 420 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This complaint was lodged on 02/05/2009. Learned Magistrate (First Class) recorded verification statement of the complainant on 12/06/2009. On perusal of the complaint verification statement and copies of the documents namely Registration Certificate concerning marriage of the accused No.1 with Dr. Rajkumar Erande and certified copy of H.M.P. No. 229/1997 filed by the accused No.1 for dissolution of marriage, the learned Magistrate issued process against all the accused i.e. accused No. 1 Nilam, accused Nos. 2 and 3 ­ the parents of the accused No.1, accused Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. the brothers of the accused No.1 under section 494, 495 415, 417 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code on 18/07/2009. This order was challenged by the accused Nos. 2 and 3 in Criminal Revision No. 154/2009 and by accused No.1 in Criminal Revision No. 150/2009 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar. Learned Sessions judge after hearing the parties, quashed the order of issuance of process against the revision petitioners and others on 08/04/2011. Learned advocate for the petitioner / complainant pointed out that the learned Sessions Judge had not taken into account the material on the record but was led astray by extraneous material and proceeded to quash the process on the premise that taking of cognizance of offence after a decade was barred by virtue of Section 468 of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He submitted that application of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unwarranted in the instant case as punishment for the offences alleged was more than three years and as such Section 468 prescribed no limitation for taking cognizance of the said offences. In support of the submission, he placed reliance on the judgment in Tara Dutta's case (State of H.P. Vs. Tara Dutt and another : AIR 2000 Supreme Court 297).

(3.) LAW punishes following offences with the punishments as stated herein below. Section 494 I.P.C. : Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and fine. Section 495 Penal provision 417 I.P.C. : Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years or fine or both. Section 420 : Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and fine. It can thus be seen that one of the offence alleged in the complaint attracts punishment of imprisonment for the term which may extend to ten years. Section 468 of the Code of the Criminal Procedure, 1973 clearly spells out that the period of limitation in relation to offence which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or as the case may be, most severe punishment. Obviously severe punishment amongst offences alleged in the complaint is for ten years and section 468 prescribes no limitation therefor, as can be seen from the text of Section 468 (2). 468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court, shall ba take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. om (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) Three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. [(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.] The order of Apex Court endorsed such interpretation of Section 468 in following words :