VEENA BAJAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, by way of criminal misc. petitions, challenges the cognizance taken by the competent Court on the ground that as the cognizance has been taken on 11.12.2013 while the F.I.R. was lodged on 26.4.2010, the cognizance is barred by limitation as provided under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C.

(2.) Learned Counsel submits that as the offence under Section 498-A I.P.C. is punishable by three years imprisonment, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. would apply for taking cognizance under Section 498-A I.P.C. as well as for offence under Section 406 I.P.C. Learned Counsel replies on the judgment in the case of Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Mohd. Sharaful Haque & Anr., reported in 2005 (1) SCC 122.

(3.) Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor submits that in view of the latest pronouncement of the Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew & Ors. Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director K.M. Cherian & Ors., reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62, in the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. for computing the period of limitation is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date of institution of prosecution of criminal proceedings and therefore, the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. would not have application.