MURLIDHAR DHOKRIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents placed on record by the petitioner along with the petition under Section 482 CrPC as well as learned Public Prosecutor. It appears from the facts of the case that some quarrel took place between the petitioner and the complainant/respondent no.2 on 1.7.1995. On 22.7.1995, a report was submitted to the SHO, Sadar Bazar Police Station, Jodhpur. The reason for not lodging the FIR forthwith as given by the complainant in his statement is that since the complainant's association officers were not available, therefore, he did not report the matter to the police on the same day. However, that fact is not mentioned in the report submitted by the complainant to the police. It will be worthwhile to mention here that the FIR was registered and the police submitted FR in the Court on 23.8.1995 (Annex.2) but the trial court took cognizance on complainant's protest petition. Be it as it may be, the trial court vide order dated 26.10.1998 took cognizance under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 392 IPC. The charge under Section 392 IPC was quashed by this Court in SB Criminal Revision Petition No.258/2003 (Murlidhar v. State of Rajasthan) decided on 18.7.2003 . According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the punishment under Section 341 IPC is of one month's imprisonment, under Section 323 IPC is one year's imprisonment and under Section 504 IPC is 2 years' imprisonment. In view of the above, cognizance taken on 26.10.1998 of the alleged offence of 1.7.1995 was barred by time. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in fact, there is no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR. According to the complainant himself, he was not under any disability to report the matter to the concerned police station forthwith. It is also submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh reported in AIR 1981 SC 1054 where the accused was convicted by the trial court under Section 409 IPC and the Court found that the conviction could only be under Section 406 IPC, then the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even taking of cognizance of the offence was illegal. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of Criminal Procedure Code in putting a bar of limitation on the prosecutions was clearly to prevent the parties from filing cases after a long time, as a result of which material evidence may disappear and also to prevent abuse of the process of the court by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions long after the date of the offence.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of this Court delivered in the case of Champa Lal and another v. State of Rajasthan wherein this Court held that the offence committed on 3.7.1992 and cognizance was taken on 17.9.1994 in respect of offence punishable under Section 448 IPC, cognizance of the offence could have been taken only within a period of one year and when the cognizance was taken after one year, proceedings were quashed. Despite notice, nobody appeared on behalf of the respondent no.2.

(3.) It is clear from the facts mentioned above that the allegation of commission of offence is of 1.7.1995, cognizance was taken by the Court on 26.10.1998 and that was under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 392 IPC. The charge under Section 392 IPC was quashed by this Court in criminal revision no.258/2003 vide order dated 18.7.2003, therefore, cognizance of the offences that the court below remained with respect to the offences committed under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC. The maximum punishment is 2 years' imprisonment only and the cognizance has been taken after a period of 3 years.