CASE TITLE:
Jai Krishna Dubey@ Raj Dubey And 4 Others vs State of U.P and Another
DATE OF JUDGEMENT:
July 5, 2022.
BENCH:
Justice.Sameer Jain
PARTIES:
Petitioners – Jai Krishna Dubey @ Raj Dubey & 4 Others
Respondents – State of U.P and Another
SUBJECT
The application had been filed by the applicants to quash the entire proceedings of the criminal case. The applicants had filed the same on the ground that the cognizance by the court is time-barred and thus the proceedings against the applicants shall be put down.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the cognizance taken by the magistrate is barred by time or not under section 468 of Cr. P.C, 1973?
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- SECTION 147 OF IPC, 1860: This section provides the punishment for rioting. Whoever is guilty of the same shall be punished with imprisonment for a period of up to two years or a fine or both.
- SECTION 148 OF IPC, 1860: This section deals with the offence of rioting armed with deadly weapons, whoever is guilty of the same shall be punished with imprisonment for a period extending up to three years or a fine or both.
- SECTION 336 OF IPC, 1860: This section deals with the offence of doing any act either rashly or negligently resulting in endangering the human life or personal safety. A person committing such offense shall be punished with imprisonment for three months or fine, or both.
- SECTION 332 OF IPC, 1860: This section provides the punishment for whosoever tries to voluntarily harm or hurt a public servant in his duty which shall extend up to imprisonment for three years or fine or both.
- SECTION 353 OF IPC, 1860: This section deals with the offence of assault or use of criminal force upon any public servant when he is discharging his duty by any person. A person committing such offense shall be punished with imprisonment extending up to two years or fine or both.
- SECTION 504 OF IPC, 1860: This section provides that whoever intentionally insults with an intent to provoke any person to cause him to break the public peace shall be punishable with imprisonment extending up to a term of two years or fine or both.
- SECTION 506 OF IPC, 1860: This section provides the punishment for the offence of criminal intimidation. The same shall be imprisonment extending up to two years or fine or both. When such an offence leads to causing death, or grievous hurt the same would be punishable with imprisonment extending up to seven years or a fine or both.
- SECTION 468 OF CR.P.C, 1973: This section deals with the limitation period for taking cognizance. If the offence is punishable with only a fine then the limitation period shall be six months, one year if the punishment is imprisonment not exceeding a year, and three years if the punishment is for more than one year but not exceeding three years.
OVERVIEW
- An F.I.R had been filed against the applicants on 11.06.2017 regarding the incident that took place on 10.06.2017. Investigation for the same was initiated and completed on 30.06.2017. Further charge sheet was also framed on the same day.
- The same was filed before the competent court on 27.01.2021 and without any further delay, the court took the cognizance on the same day.
- The cognizance was taken after three years the and thus, applicants filed for an application questioning the period of limitation under section 468 of Cr.P.C.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER
- The counsel on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the cognizance taken by the court had been time-barred since it had already passed three years from the date of the incident.
- The counsel further submitted that the charge sheet filed for the offences was not punishable by more than three years of imprisonment. Thus, as per section 468 of Cr. P.C the limitation period had also been exceeded and the court cannot take any cognizance.
- Thus, the counsel submitted that the cognizance order is time-barred and the proceedings pending shall be struck down.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- The counsel for the respondents submitted that the F.I.R was filed as soon as the incident took place and stated that the cognizance was taken by the court as the F.I.R was filed within the limitation period.
- The counsel further argued that the investigation was also conducted and concluded within the three years of the limitation period and the same was filed in the court thus the cognizance was also taken by the court without any delay.
- The counsel further submitted that there did not exist any illegality in the cognizance order and hence the application made by the applicants shall be dismissed.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The court after analyzing both the parties and considering the limitation period, held that the law had been settled as to the period of limitation under section 468 of Cr. P.C shall be computed from the date of commission of the offence.
- The court relied upon the judgement in the case Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases [(2014) 2SCC 62] and held that the relevant date for computing the limitation period under section 468 of Cr. P.C is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the magistrate takes cognizance.
- The court further relied upon the cases Darshan Singh Saini vs. Sohan Singh and another [(2015)14 SCC570] held that the institution of prosecution refers to the date of filing the complaint or registration of F.I.R and if the same is within the limitation period they cannot be held as barred under Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
CONCLUSION
Thus, the relevant date to be considered for computing the limitation period was held to be the date of institution of prosecution.
Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
