HEMRAJ Vs. SMT.CHANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal revision under section 397 read with section 401 of CrPC is directed against the order passed by learned Sessions Judge, Indore in Criminal Appeal No.563/2013 dated 11.12.2013 whereby, learned Sessions Judge confirmed the order passed by learned JMFC, Indore in MJC No. 11 /2012 dated 22.7.2013.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this application are that complaint under section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, was filed before the Judicial Magistrate by the respondent. In this case, present applicant filed an application under section 468 of CrPC read with section 31 of Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act ''). As per the averments made in the application, it was stated that present applicant committed physical and mental cruelty on the respondent and also did not return her streedhan which was given to her as gift during her marriage. The Magistrate opined in the impugned order that provision of section 468 of CrPC which provides period of limitation for taking cognizance in criminal case, do not apply on compliant filed under section 12 of the Act, as it was a continuing offence and, therefore, no limitation can bar filing of the application. The same view was taken by the Sessions Judge and learned Sessions Judge observed that respondent did not pray under section 31 of the Act to take cognizance of any offence under that section and, therefore, provision of section 468 of CrPC do not apply in this case.

(3.) COUNSEL for the applicant placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab and another, reported in 2012 CrIJ 309. In para 24 of the judgment, Hon'ble the Supreme Court observed that 24. Submissions made by Shri Ranjit Kumar on the issue of limitation, in view of the provisions of section 468 CrPC. that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of CrPC applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of this Court in Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [AIR 2007 SC 2762]; and Noida Entrepreneurs Association v. Noida and others [(2011)6 SCC 508].