Delhi High Court
Saroj Devi vs State & Ors. on 4 February, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: February 04, 2015
+ Crl.M.C.No.1860/2012
SAROJ DEVI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arati Mahajan Shedha,
Advocate
versus
STATE & ORS. ..... RespondentS
Through: Mr. Vinod Diwakar, Additional
Public Prosecutor for respondent
State
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
Petitioner is the complainant, at whose instance FIR No.165/2002
for the offences under Sections 498A/406/34 of the IPC was registered
but the charge-sheet in the aforesaid FIR case was filed in January, 2008
along with application for condonation of delay. The reason to seek
condonation of delay in filing the charge-sheet put-forth was
misplacement of file and trial court as well as Revisional Court has noted
that the limitation for filing of the charge-sheet for the offence in question
came to an end in March, 2005 and the application for condonation of
delay has been filed in a routine manner without any plausible
explanation. While refusing to condone the delay, cognizance of the
Crl. M.C.No.1860/2012 Page 1
offence in question is not taken by the trial court.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner-complainant
submitted that there was no lapse on the part of petitioner-complainant
and the negligence was on the part of respondent-State in filing the
charge-sheet in time and the complainant be not made to suffer. It was
pointed out that Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides
for extension of period of limitation and the courts below ought to have
exercised their jurisdiction to condone the delay. During the course of
hearing, it was submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that there is no
limitation for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC, as it is a
continuing offence and so refusal to take cognizance by the trial court is
bad in law. Thus, quashing of the impugned order is sought by petitioner.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders and the
material on record, I find that the courts below have taken note of the fact
that the misplacement of the file was in September, 2007 i.e. much after
the period of limitation which stood expired in March, 2005. Jurisdiction
under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is not to be
routinely exercised and unless a plausible and cogent explanation for the
delay is forthcoming, delay cannot be condoned.
So far as the allegations of cruelty etc. are concerned, it was
brought to the notice of this Court by petitioner's counsel that presently
petitioner is residing with respondent-husband. Meaning thereby,
petitioner has condoned the acts of cruelty. In order to see whether
congnizance for the offence under Section 406 of the IPC can be taken or
not, this Court has perused the charge-sheet of this case and it finds that
there are no clear cut allegations of entrustment of dowry articles and no
Crl. M.C.No.1860/2012 Page 2
dates on which cruelty was meted out is forthcoming. Even the contents
of the FIR in question as well as investigation conducted are lacking in
material particulars. Therefore, cognizance for the offence under Section
406 of the IPC cannot be taken.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no substance in this
petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 04, 2015
r
Crl. M.C.No.1860/2012 Page 3
