MANOHAR LAL Vs. BODH RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P -3), passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, whereby the complaint bearing No. 62 dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P -2) filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure P -4) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amabala, dismissing the revision. The petitioner filed a criminal complainant against respondent -Bodh Raj and two others, namely, Chiman Lal and Lal Chand for having misappropriated 1 Kg. of gold and other articles. The facts emerging from the complaint (Annexure P -2) are that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and his real brothers, namely, Lal Chand and Bodh Raj (respondent herein) regarding partition of the movable and immovable properties left by their father. Three arbitrators, namely, Chiman Lal, Ram Chand and Bhajan Lal, were appointed and the above articles were entrusted to Chiman Lal on 2.3.1992. Chiman Lal is said to have misappropriated the goods in connivance with Lal Chand and Bodh Raj -respondent. The complainant -petitioner also moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Jind on 28.12.1998, alleging misappropriation of the articles by these persons.

(2.) THE petitioner also approached this Court, by way of petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. bearing CRM -M -95 -1999, for a direction to register FIR against Chiman Lal for misappropriating the entrusted articles, which was disposed on 27.4.2000 with the observation that since the matter has already been investigated by the police and if the petitioner was not satisfied with the report under Section 107/151 Cr. P.C., it is always open to him to file a criminal complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction. It was thereafter, the complaint dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P -2) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, for offences under Sections 406/420 IPC. The summoning order dated 18.7.2002 was passed against the respondent and other two persons under Section 406 IPC.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the bar of limitation under Section 468 Cr. P.C. is a mixed question of law and facts and the complaint cannot be thrown away at the threshold. It is also contended that the offence of misappropriation is a continuing offence for which the bar of limitation is not attracted.