SUBROTO KUMAR DEY Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought quashing of FIR No. 146/2003 dated 8.4.2003 registered under Sections 279/337 IPC at Police Station, Dhandar Kalan, Focal Point, Ludhiana. The petitioner claims that the present case cannot be proceeded against him in view of the limitation laid down under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as the charge-sheet in this case has been filed after expiry of period of one year and thus would bar the taking of cognizance of the offence against him by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.

(2.) FIR was registered on 8.4.2003 within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Dhandar Kalan, Focal Point, Ludhiana under Sections 279/337 IPC in connection with an accident, which took place on 7.4.2003. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed on 9.8.2004. On 18.10.2004 charges were framed against the petitioner. On 30.4.29005, the petitioner moved an application for recalling of the summoning order against him on the ground that the challan had been filed after the period of limitation and as such the cognizance had been taken on the expiry of the period of limitation as provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C. This application, however, was rejected by the Magistrate on 3.9.2005 by relying on the case of Subramanium Sethuraman v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., 2004(4) RCR(Criminal) 349 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 535 : 2005(1) Chandigarh Law Reporter 10 by holding that Magistrate has no power to recall or review its own order and to discharge the accused. Thereafter the present petition was filed seeking quashing of the FIR and the proceedings on the grounds, as afore-mentioned.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.