DEVENDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mandi rejecting the submissions made on behalf of the Petitioner that charges under Section 406 and 403 IPC have not been made out and that case is barred by limitation under the provisions of Section 468 Code of Criminal Procedure.

(2.) PRIOR to the institution of the present petition, Cr.MMO No. 51 of 2010 was instituted by the Petitioner under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that FIR 441 of 2006 (which is also subject matter of the present case) be quashed as no offence is made out against the Petitioner. The petition was held as not maintainable. The Court ordered: 19.5.2010.... Cr.MMO No. 51 of 2010 The matter arising out of FIR No. 441 of 2006, registered in Police Station, Mandi has culminated into the police challan, which stands presented before the Judicial Magistrate at Mandi and the same is fixed for consideration of charge on 31.5.2010. The Petitioner is at liberty to take all points at the 16/5/2014 Page 123 Abhishek Thakur Versus State Of H.P. time of consideration of charge which have been taken in this petition. Therefore, in view of this, when the alternative remedy is available to him and it is not a rarest of the rear case for the intervention of this Court, the present petition is not maintainable. Hence, dismissed. Cr.MP Nos. 172 and 173 of 2010 In view of the dismissal of the main petition, these application have become infructuous. As such, dismissed as infructuous....

(3.) ON the first aspect, what I find is that the learned trial Court has given its careful and anxious thought to the issue holding that the bar of limitation is not attracted. The learned Court holds that not only the Petitioner was charged for offences under Sections 403 and 406 IPC but also under Section 420 IPC. Certain findings have been given by the learned Court with respect to the date of knowledge when the offence is committed and counted the period of limitation from that date. At this stage, I am not inclined to interfere on this count. If later on, after recording evidence, it is found that the offences are in fact barred by limitation, it is but obvious that the necessary consequences shall ensue.