HARJEET SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order d t. 24.3.2004, whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Raisinghnagar, Distt. Sriganganagar, dismissed the revision petition of the petitioners and confirmed the order of taking cognizance for the offences under Sections 323/34 and 504 I.P.C. on account of using words 'Kuti' and 'Dedhni' towards the lady complainant. This complaint filed by respondent No. 2 was sent for investigation to the police. The police submitted the Final Report but the learned Magistrate after recording the statements of the complainant and her witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. took cognizance against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the incident is said to be of 20.9.2001 and the cognizance has been taken on 1.2.2003 i.e. one year after the incident, whereas the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. is punishable with one year's imprisonment and by virtue of Clause (b) of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C., no cognizance can be taken after a period of one year for the offence which is punishable with not more than one year's imprisonment. Of course, the offence under Section 504 I.P.C. is punishable with two years' imprisonment but the cognizance is time barred for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. According to the learned counsel, the words, which are said to have been used i.e. 'Kuti' and 'Dedhrii. are falling in the category of offence under the SC/ST Act, for which the learned Magistrate has not taken the cognizance, despite complaint being filed by a lady belonging to SC/ST. According to the learned counsel, the incident of complaint is out of complainant's jealousy, because the complainant being Ward Sarpanch did not attend the meeting of Gram Panchayat for six times and the petitioners filed complaint before the Collector for her non-appearance and in revenge, this complaint has been filed in the Court. According to the learned counsel, while taking cognizance under Section 504 I.P.C., the learned Magistrate has not looked into the statements recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in which she has not narrated the abusive or defamatory words. These words have been given out for the first time in the Court after a lapse of one year, when the statements of the witnesses under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded. If on such statements, the cognizance is taken, it will be the abuse of the process of law and the petitioners shall not get the justice.

(2.) On the contrary, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the orders of both the Courts below.

(3.) Having considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is true that the learned Magistrate has taken cognizance for the offence under Section 323 I.P.C. against the statutory bar of one year and the cognizance under Section 504 1.P.C. is not sustainable in view of the fact that the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the documents of Final Report, where these defamatory words have not been used. Anybody can level these allegations of defamation, when the Final Report is submitted and leveling of such allegations at such a long interval on a trivial matter, where enmity is established, cannot be said to be made with clean hands. If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue against the petitioners, it will be the abuse of the process of law.