GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. LAKHWINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICES sent to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not been received back. However, I am informed by the learned counsel for the parties that these respondents are respectively the son and wife of the petitioner. Since the impugned complaint has been filed by respondent No. 1 against all three of them, their interests are common. In view of this. I am satisfied that these respondents need not be served in this case.

(2.) THE petitioner along with respondents Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. his son and wife has been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Kharar, to face trial under section 406, I.P.C. and sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 on a complaint by respondent No. 1. The petitioner prays for the quashing of the said order and the complaint also.

(3.) THE primary submission of Mr. Tulsi. the learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the present complaint is not within the period of limitation prescribed under section 468 of a the Code of Criminal Procedure and in view of that the trial Court was not competent to take cognizance of the matter. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. find that this stand of Mr. Tulsi is not devoid of merit. It is not disputed that the period of limitation in the instant case would be three years from the date when the offence of which the petitioner and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 are accused of was committed. Having perused the complaint, I find that it has nowhere been stated by the complainant that as to when any of the accused refused to return the articles entrusted to them which she claimed to be her 1stri Dhan. All that has been stated in this regard in paragraph No. 7 is as follows :