BASANTA KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present application under Section 482 Cr. P.C. the petitioner has sought to challenge the order dated 20.9.2006 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Banpur in G.R. Case No. 172 of 2002 extending the period of limitation exercising the power under Section 473 Cr.P.C. for taking cognizance of the offence under Sections 498A/34 I.P.C. as well as under Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that one Sanjit Rath, the son of petitioner No. 2 -Bama Prasan Rath married the informant -Diptimayee @ Buni Mahapatra, on 29.5.2001 in accordance with the Hindu customs and rites. Thereafter, the informant left the matrimonial house on 10.7.2001 and the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged on 31.5.2002. It is the case of both the parties that the charge sheet in the case was filed on 6.6.2006 and the learned J.M.F.C. by exercising the power under Section 473 Cr.P.C. took cognizance of various offences by the impugned order dated 20.9.2006.

(3.) SHRI S.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the informant -intervenor while not disputing the dates/events, supported the order of the learned J.M.F.C, dated 20.9.2006 by stating that no illegality can be attributed to the impugned order since the learned J.M.F.C. has correctly exercised his jurisdiction in the matter having proper understanding of his authority and jurisdiction under Section 473 Cr.P.C. and in the interest of justice has rightly extended the period of limitation for the purpose of taking cognizance of various offences against the petitioners. Shri Mishra, further submitted that the informant has lodged the F.I.R. on 31.5.2002 which was within the period of limitation, but there was defay on the part of the investigating agency in submitting the charge sheet on 6.6.2006 and the prosecution should not fail on account of delay on the part of the investigating agency in concluding the investigation and filing the charge sheet. In this regard he further submitted that the period more than four years was taken by the investigating agency to conclude the investigation and file the charge sheet and for that delay, the offenders should not go scotfree. In support of his contention, Shri Mishra has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Arun Vyas and Anr. v. Anita Vyas : 1999CriLJ3479 and on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ramesh and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2005) 30 OCR (SC) 752.