POORANDAS JATAV Vs. S.P.S. RAGHUVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the order dated 5 -10 -01 of the learned Sessions Judge, Shivpuri, allowing a revision, against the petitioner, from an order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri taking cognizance against the non - applicant No. 1 of offences punishable under sections 323 and 294 of Indian Penal Code, this revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that a private complaint was filed by the petitioner against non -applicant No. 1, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shivpuri, alleging that the non -applicant No. 1 had uttered obscene words while hurling obscene abuses on him and had also beaten him on two occasions. After enquiry, under section 202, the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate passed an order dated 30 -3 -2001, taking cognizance of offences punishable under sections 323 and 294 of Indian Penal Code against the non -applicant No. 1. Against that order, the non -petitioner No. 1 had preferred a revision before the learned Sessions Judge Shivpuri which was allowed by the impugned order on the ground that the cognizance was barred under section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code because the complainant and his witness both have stated that the incidents were more than 2 years old.

(3.) AFTER hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the contention put forth by him was totally misconceived one and this revision -petition must fail. The decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Tara Dutt, AIR 2000 SC 297 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not lend any support to his contention. In that case besides some minor offences, which were barred by limitation provided under section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, charge was also framed for an offence punishable under section 468 of Indian Penal Code and for which no limitation was prescribed. Therefore, in that case, the Court had taken cognizance of an offence punishable under section 468 of Indian Penal Code as well as some minor offences and because no limitation was prescribed for such an offence, the case was held to be not barred by limitation under section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code.