TATI KISHANA VENI Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent against the petitioners and 3rd respondent alleging that in view of the matrimonial disputes between his brother- in-law and his wife i.e., 1st petitioner, 1st petitioner filed a criminal case against his brother-in-law, parents-in-law and others which ended in their acquittal. Hence 1st petitioner and her relatives bore against his in-laws and trespassed into the house of his in-laws at 8.00 a.m., on 15-1-1999 and started abusing them in a filthy language, when he along with his wife was in his in-laws house for Pongal festival and when his mother-in- law questioned their behaviour, 1st petitioner beat his mother-in-law and on hearing her shouts he and his wife rushed to her rescue whereupon 1st petitioner and 3rd respondent caught hold of his wife and beat her indiscriminately and when he tried to stop them, 2nd petitioner dragged him out of the house and pushed him on a scooter with a great force, due to which he received incised wound and so, he went to the Police Station and gave a report but the police did not choose to take action, was referred by the learned Magistrate to police for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.PC, who after investigation sent a final report that it is a non-cognizable case. On a protest petition filed by the 2nd respondent the learned Magistrate recorded his sworn statement and the statements of the witnesses examined by him and took cognizance of the case under Section 352 read with Section 34 IPC as CC.No.1203 of 2000 against the petitioners and the 3rd respondent but dismissed the complaint for offences under Sections 290, 324, 447 and 506 IPC. This petition is filed by the petitioners to quash the proceedings in the said CC against them.

(2.) The main contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that since 1st petitioner admittedly is the wife of the brother-in-law of the 2nd respondent, and since the incident alleged took place in the house of the in-laws of the 2nd respondent, who admittedly also are the in-laws of the 1st petitioner, entry of the 1st petitioner and her relatives into the house of her in-laws cannot be trespass, and so it is clear that the complaint is mala fide and is intended to spite the petitioners since 1st petitioner filed a case under Section 498-A IPC against her husband and her in-laws. It is his contention that since the police, after thorough investigation, found that there was only hot exchange of words, it cannot be said that there was any offence, and in any event since offence under Section 352 IPC is punishable with imprisonment for three months or fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or with both, and since the offence alleged is said to have been committed on 15-1-1999, and since the cognizance of the offence was taken on 3-10-2000 i.e., more than one year from the date of commission of the alleged offence, when as per Section 468(2)(b) Cr.PC, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence punishable with imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year is one year, proceedings against the petitioners are clearly barred by time and hence are liable to be quashed. He relied on State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1981 SC 1054, in support of his contention.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for 2nd respondent is that since the complaint was filed within the time, and since the police did not state that the offence alleged was not committed, but stated that there was hot exchange of words, and in any event since 2nd respondent is not responsible for the delay caused by the Court taking cognizance of the offence, question of quashing the proceedings on the ground of limitation does not arise in view of the ratio in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Tara Dutt, AIR 2000 SC 297.