SANTOSH KUMAR Vs. LACHHI DEVI & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 13.07.2013, Annexure P-4, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra (H.P.) ., in Cr. Rev. (RBT) No.18-K/X/13/12, is under challenge in this petition on several grounds, however, mainly that in view of the allegations in the complaint (Annexure P-1) and the preliminary objections produced by respondent No.1 Lachhi Devi (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) , no process could have been issued against the petitioner. The question of limitation has also been raised by submitting that the complaint, which has been filed after lapse of a period of three years, is not at all maintainable. Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra at Dharamshala, has issued the process against the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the accused) after taking into consideration the complaint, documents annexed thereto and also the evidence produced in preliminary, vide order dated 25.11.2012. This order has been affirmed by learned Sessions Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, vide order dated 13.07.2017, passed in Cr. Rev. No.18-K/X/13/12.

(2.) The allegations in the complaint are that after the death of Sh. Amar Singh, father of the complainant Lachhi Devi, when the complainant and her two sisters Rekha Devi and Nirmala Devi were minors, the house of their father alongwith household articles and ornaments, were entrusted to accused Thogli Ram vide list Ext.CW-2/A. Such articles were entrusted to him for safe custody and with an understanding to return the same as and when the complainant and her two sisters attains the age of majority. The execution of the document is proved by Phillo Ram, one of the witnesses thereto, who has been examined in preliminary evidence as CW- The other witnesses are Punnu Trangad and Chand Trangad. The evidence so produced in preliminary, prima-facie, make out a case against the accused-petitioner and proforma respondents No.2 & 3, namely Thogli Ram and Parmod. They both have not assailed the order issuing process against them also. The claim of the accused-petitioner in this petition, is also not legally sustainable.

(3.) If coming to the question of limitation, raised on behalf of the accused-petitioner, there is no denial to the fact that in a case of this nature, the proceedings should be launched within three years from the date of the commission of an offence. The allegations are that the property entrusted to the accused was to be returned to the complainant and her sisters on their attaining the age of majority. The complainant in her statement, may have stated her age as 28 years, however, when on being actually attained the age of majority the property was not returned by the accused, is also a question which need proof to be produced at an appropriate stage. The fact as to when her sister attained the age of majority also need to be gone into. Otherwise also, the allegation in the complaint against the accused-petitioner and proforma respondents that the complaint was filed when they refused to return the articles entrusted to them, also needs to be taken into consideration at an appropriate stage.