JANARDHAN UPADHYAY Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR, charge -sheet and the consequential proceedings initiated against him by invoking the provisions of Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. The petitioner claims that in view of the bar of limitation laid down in the said Section, the Magistrate could not have competently taken cognizance of this offence as the same was barred by limitation.

(2.) F.I.R. No. 64 dated 6.5.1999 (Annexure P -1) was registered against the petitioner with the allegation for the offences under Ss. 406, 420 and 120B IPC. The complainant alleges that Satish Kumar Upadhya son of the petitioner was doing iron business and had business transaction with him. The complainant further claims that he was cheated and defrauded by said Satish Kumar Upadhya in connivance with the petitioner and his other family members. The complainant also says that he was influenced and persuaded by the petitioner working as Head Cashier in a renowned bank, to have business dealing with his son, who was running an iron business under the name of M/s Satish Iron Store. It is further alleged that the petitioner had taken responsibility of his son, who had issued certain cheques in favour of the complainant, which were dishonoured. When the complainant approached the petitioner, he rebuked him besides threatening him with ire consequences. Allegations are also made that the petitioner and his family members have, thus, decamped with a sum of Rs. 90 lacs (approximately) of various creditors. Allegation of the complainant is that he is duped of Rs.3.50 lacs. The police carried out investigation in this case and presented a challan against the petitioner on 10.1.2004. The Court ultimately framed charges against the petitioner under Ss. 406, 120B IPC on 7.7.2004. Being aggrieved against the order framing the charge against him, the petitioner has filed the present petition, seeking quashing of the same on various grounds, one of which relates to a bar of limitation, as provided under Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. Relying on Sec. 468 Cr.P.C., it is submitted that the Sec. provides a period of limitation for taking cognizance of offence and in view of this, the trial Court would have no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence under Sec. 406 IPC after expiry of period of 3 years, the offence being punishable upto 3 years.

(3.) Notice of motion was issued. Reply on behalf of the State is filed. While opposing the prayer, It is stated that the offence alleged against the petitioner is under Sec. 420 IPC and accordingly Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. would not be applicable in this case. This submission of course is countered by counsel for the petitioner, who would say that though the FIR did contain an offence under Sec. 420 as well but the petitioner has now been charged only for an offence under Ss. 406 and 120B IPC.