UPALI SURAJITA DHAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. the petitioner who are accused in ICC No. 24 of 2004 in the Court of the SDJM, Jaipur have prayed for quashing the order of the Court below passed on 27th March, 2004 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 448/294/506(1)/34, IPC.

(2.) Opposite party No. 2 who is an Assistant of the Postal Department and was posted at the S. B. Counter of the Jaipur G.P.O. filed a complaint on the basis of which the aforesaid complaint case was registered before the Court below alleging that on 12th May, 2001 at about 13.30 hours the petitioners along with three others came to the Jaipur G.P.O. and accused petitioner No. 1-Upali wanted to withdraw of a sum of Rs. 1,500.00 from her A/c. No. 56280. That being a Saturday, the counter of the GPO were closed since 1.00 p.m. and the complainant told the said fact to the accused- petitioners. Being enraged, the petitioners abused the complainant, threatened to assault him and tried to coerce him to pay the amount on withdrawal. With regard to the said incident the complainant filed an FIR at the local police station but as no steps were taken by police he filed the aforesaid complaint petition before the Court below and the said Court has taken cognizance of offences under Sections 448/294/506(1)/34,IPC.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that petitioner No. 1 is a practising advocate at Jaipur. According to the petitioners, being enraged by the fact that an award had been passed by the Consumer Court against the complainant at the behest of the petitioners, the aforesaid false and frivolous complaint case had been filed by the complainant against them. Even otherwise, according to the petitioners, as the offences were alleged to have been committed by them on 12th May, 2001, cognizance thereof could not have been taken on 27-3-2004 by operation of law of limitation. Relying upon Section 468, Cr.P.C., it is submitted by their learned counsel that the Court below acted illegally and with material ir- regularity in taking cognizance of the alleged offences beyond the period stipulated to do so under Cr.P.C. At the other hand learned counsel for the complainant-opposite party No. 2 submitted that the complaint petition had been filed before the Court below in time and the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners are untenable.