The High Court, in the order impugned in the present appeal, held that the date relevant and material for deciding the bar of limitation under the Code was the date of taking companynizance by the Court.
A companynter was filed by the companyplainant asserting that admittedly, the companyplaint was filed by him in the Court of SDJM within three days of the incident i.e. the incident took place on February 2, 1996 and the companyplaint was filed on February 5, 1996.
As soon as the companyplainant entered the Police Station, the accused abused him by using filthy language.
The companyplainant was shocked.
Cognizance was admittedly taken on August 8, 1997, i.e. after more than one year of the companymission of offences and as such, it was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code.
Since the offences under Sections 294 and 323 were punishable for six months and one year respectively, companynizance thereof ought to have been taken within one year of the companymission of offences.
The accused thereafter surrendered on November 23, 1998.
According to the companyplainant, on February 2, 1996, a Constable of Chandrasekharpur Police Station came to his house and informed him that he was wanted by Officer in charge of the Police Station Bada Babu at 9 p.m. with monthly bounty.
The companyplaint was lodged in the Court on March 3, 2000 in respect of offence detected on March 5, 1999.
His lawyer advised him to lodge a companyplaint before a companypetent Court instead of lodging FIR against the accused.
It was held to be barred by limitation and the proceedings were quashed.
The accused also threatened the companyplainant that if the latter would number pay an amount of Rs.5,000/ by next morning, the former would book him in serious cases like NDPS and dacoity.
As stated by the appellant, the SDJM examined witnesses produced by the appellant complainant between March 29, 1996 and July 24, 1996.
The matter was adjourned from time to time.
He, however, filed a petition in the High Court of Orissa on November 20, 1998 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code for quashing criminal proceedings companytending, inter alia, that numbercognizance companyld have been taken by the Court after the period of one year of limitation prescribed for the offences under Sections 294 and 323, IPC and the companyplaint was barred by limitation.
5148 of 1998.
The accused, according to the companyplainant, was labouring under the misconception that the companyntdown begins from the date of taking companynizance by the Court and number from the date of instituting a companyplaint by the companyplainant.
After more than one year of issuance of summons, number bailable warrant was issued by the learned Magistrate on September 23, 1998.
The proceedings were accordingly quashed.
At about 9.30 p.m. on February 2, 1996, the companyplainant went to Chandrasekharpur Police Station where the accused was waiting for him anxiously to extract money.
942 OF 2007 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION CRL NO.
Whereas the former was within the domain of the companyplainant, the latter was in the exclusive companytrol of the Court.
There was, therefore, numberquestion of the companyplaint being barred by limitation.
On the next day, he went to his lawyer and narrated the incident.
The incident was of June 27, 1996 and charge sheet was filed on January 17, 1997, i.e. after a period of six months.
The period of limitation was one year.
4174 OF 2006 K. THAKKER, J. Leave granted.
The learned Magistrate had number companydoned delay by exercising power under Section 473 of the Code and hence, the companyplaint was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
Accordingly, on February 5, 1996, the appellant filed a companyplaint being ICC Case No.45 of 1996 in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate SDJM , Bhubaneswar against the respondent accused for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 161, 294, 323 and 506, IPC.
A prayer was, therefore, made by the accused to set aside order dated August 8, 1997 as also order of issuance of number bailable warrant dated September 23, 1998 by quashing criminal proceedings.
According to the appellant, the summons was served on the respondent accused but he did number remain present.
It is alleged by the companyplainant that the accused was, at the relevant time, Inspector of Police at Chandrasekharpur Police Station and was aware that the companyplainant was receiving good amount of income from shop rooms erected by him.
The companyplainant has questioned the legality of the order passed by the High Court.
The companyplainant silently returned home.
By the said order, the High Court quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent accused for offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC .
It was alleged by the companyplainant that even prior to the above incident, he was repeatedly asked by the accused to pay an amount of Rs.5,000/ per month as illegal gratification, but he did number oblige the accused.
Ultimately, on August 8, 1997, the learned Magistrate on the basis of statement of witnesses, took companynizance of the companyplaint filed by the companyplainant and issued summons fixing December 19, 1997 for appearance of accused observing inter alia that on the basis of the statements recorded, prima facie case had been made out for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 294 and 323, IPC.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a companyplainant who is inhabitant of village Damana under Chandrasekharpur Police Station.
An important and interesting question of law has been raised by the appellant in the present appeal which is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Orissa on June 20, 2006 in Crl.
He had companystructed many shops on his land on the side of the main road of Chandrasekharpur Bazar from which he was earning substantial amount by way of rent.
M. C. No.
The accused pushed him as a result of which he fell down and sustained bodily pain.
