LAKHERAM Vs. SHYAMLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 22-6-1984, passed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, overruling the objection of the applicant-accused that the complaint for commission of alleged offence under Section 498 of the I. P. C. filed against him was liable to rejection, being barred by time under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code' ).

(2.) THE facts in brief are that complainant-non-applicant Shyamlal, who is the husband of Savitribai filed a complaint against the applicant-accused Lakheram, who is father of Savitribai, alleging that on the pretext of taking her for a festival he carried her in the year 1977 to his village with an intent to get her re-married. A copy of the complaint and a copy of the application objecting registration of the complaint have been supplied to the Court by the counsel for the applicant. Perusal of the copy of the complaint would should that in paragraph 3, the date of taking away of her daughter Savitribai by the applicant is stated to be in the year 1977, but, in paragraph 5, no year or date has been mentioned when the non-applicant husband went to the village of the father, who refused to send back the daughter to the non-applicant's house, stating that the non-applicant was poor and the applicant, therefore, wanted to get her re-married.

(3.) THE applicant filed an application on 23-9-1983, praying that the complaint did not prima facie disclose commission of offence under Section 498 of the I. P. C. and that the complaint was prima facie barred by time under Section 468 of the Code. The trial Court by order dated 22-6-1984 held that the facts stated in the complaint constitute an act of continuing offence of illegally detaining Savitribai with an intention to get her re-married. The trial Court, therefore, held that the complaint in respect of continuing offence could not be rejected as barred by time. The trial Court also held that the statement of complainant and his witness Dhansai, prima facie show commission of an offence under Section 498 of the I. P. C. and the complaint could not be rejected on the ground that it did not disclose commission of any cognizable offence.