Kerala High Court
C N Sameer vs Station House Officer City ... on 2 February, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942
Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1267/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST
CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA
PETITIONER/S:
C N SAMEER
AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.C.K.NATESAN,CHEMMATTUVELY
HOUSE, NADAKAV P.O,UDAYAMPEROR 682 307.
BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CITY TRAFFIC POLICE
STATION
CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,TRIPUNITHURA.
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF
KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
3 BINDU MUKUNDAN COMPLAINANT
KOOTTUMMUKHATH HOUSE, NADAKKAV P.O,UDAYAMPEROOR
- 682 307.
R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE
OTHER PRESENT:
SR. GP-SRI. CHANDRASENAN D.
THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G) 2
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
----------------------------------
Crl.M.C. No. 3106 of 2017
--------------------------------
Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2021
ORDER
The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1267/2016 on the file
of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura. It is a
private complaint filed by the 3rd respondent against the petitioner
alleging offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC.
Annexure-A6 is the complaint. The learned Magistrate took
cognizance of the offences under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC and
issued summons to the petitioner. This petition under Sec. 482 of
the Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the above proceedings pending before
the lower court.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the
3rd respondent. I also heard the Public Prosecutor.
3. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the
complaint is barred by limitation. The contention of the petitioner
is that the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Secs.
279 and 337 of the IPC and the complaint ought to have been
filed within one year from the date of the alleged incident.
Admittedly, in this case, the complaint was filed after one year.
Therefore, it is barred by limitation and the learned Magistrate
erred in taking cognizance of the offences. This is the sum and
substance of the contentions.
4. The counsel for the 3rd respondent submitted that the
complainant explained the delay in the complaint and simply
because the learned Magistrate has not considered the same in the
order taking cognizance, it will be an injustice to the 3 rd respondent,
if this Court interfere with the order on the ground of delay. The
counsel also submitted that if this Court feel that the learned
Magistrate committed an error, this matter can be send back to the
lower court.
5. Admittedly, the alleged incident in this case happened
on 8.9.2014. The complaint was filed only on 1.8.2016. The learned
Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs.
279 and 337 of the IPC. The maximum punishment that can be
imposed under Sec. 279 of the IPC is 6 months or a fine of Rs. 1000
or with both. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under
Sec. 337 of the IPC is 6 months or a fine of Rs.500/- or both. As per
Sec. 468(2)(b) of the Cr.P.C., there is a limitation period in taking
cognizance of the offences in which maximum punishment is for a
term not exceeding one year. Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. is extracted herein.
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.
"(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall
take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub- section (2),
after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not
exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation
to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with
reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe
punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."
6. From the above provision, it is clear that the period of
limitation will be one year if the offence is punishable with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Admittedly, in
this case, the maximum punishment that can be imposed under
Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC are below one year.
7. When this case came up for consideration, this Court
directed the Registry to obtain a report from the Judicial First
Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura regarding the delay aspect
raised by the petitioner in this Crl.M.C. The learned Magistrate
forwarded a report dated 18.2.2019. The relevant portion of the
report is extracted herein.
"CMP No.357/16 was filed by complainant Bindu Mukundan on
01.08.2016. Her sworn statement was recorded on 01.08.2016 itself. The
statements on oath of the other witnesses were recorded on 27.08.2016
and 03.09.2016. The complainant was heard and as prima facie case was
found against the accused, cognizance was taken against him of offences
u/s. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence alleged had
happened on 08.09.2014.
I regret that I had inadvertently overlooked the delay involved in
the case. In consequence of the same I had not passed an order condoning
the delay and had mistakenly taken cognizance of the offence against the
accused. I had acted in all bonafides and I deeply regret the
inconvenience caused in this regard. I assure Your Lordship that, I shall
act with due care in future. "
8. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of
the offence without condoning the delay. The learned Magistrate
conceded that she committed a mistake. Admittedly, the complaint
is filed after the limitation period. In such circumstances, taking
cognizance of the offences is per se, illegal. Therefore, the
proceedings against the petitioner will not stand.
Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All
further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 1267/2016 on
the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tripunithura will
stand quashed.
Sd/-
P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
JUDGE
SKS
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:
TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION
ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 18.04.2017
