DILIP AMRUTRAO TARAL Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order passed by the JMFC, Daund on 23.2.1999 whereby a charge was framed against them for offences punishable under Sections 498A and 323 r/w section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The main contention raised by the petitioners in this petition is that the complaint was barred by limitation and, therefore, no process could have been issued against them. The facts giving rise to the present complaint are as follows:

(3.) A bare perusal of the complaint indicates that the allegation against the petitioners is that they have committed the offences from June 1990 to 26.4.1991. The complaint admittedly is filed on 10.12.1996, well beyond the period of limitation. The trial Court has held that there were sufficient reasons to condone the delay and has framed the charge.