Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hansa Ben vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 December, 2021
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 3) [CRLMP-6891/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6891/2021
Hansa Ben W/o Sh. Dalla Bhai, Aged About 45 Years, Mandali,
P.s. Mausari, Teh. Vav, Dist. Banaskantha (Guj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.J. Punia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Rajpurohit, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Judgment / Order
16/12/2021
This criminal misc. petition under section 482
CrPC is filed by the petitioners for quashing of the proceedings
inCr. Regular Case No.499/2012 pending before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Chouhtan, District Barmer for the
offence punishable under section 3(3)(6) of Criminal Law
Amendment Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act of
1961').
Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the
complaint filed by SDO, Gudamalani, District Barmer against
the petitioners regarding the aforesaid offence is ambiguous. It
is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the said
complaint is not maintainable as it is time barred because the
alleged offence is said to have been committed on 05.07.2004
(2 of 3) [CRLMP-6891/2021]
whereas the complaint thereof was filed on 19.01.2008.
It is submitted that maximum punishment for the
offence under section 3(3)(6) of the Act of 1961 is one year but
the complaint was filed after about 4 years of the alleged
incident and, therefore, the trial court erred in taking
cognizance against the petitioners on a time barred complaint.
In support of the above contentions, learned counsel
for the petitioners has placed reliance on the orders of this
Court dated 02.04.2013, 15.01.2014, 29.01.2015, 22.07.2015,
19.01.2017 and 23.07.2018 passed in S.B.Cr.Misc. Pet.
Nos.1568/2008, 2304/2013, 1438/2014, 1962/2015,
4010/2016 and in 1500/2018 respectively. He has contended
that this Court has quashed the proceedings against the
persons for the offence punishable under section 3(1)(6) of the
Act of 1961 on the ground that the same were time barred and
the complaint was also vague and non-descriptive.
Learned Public Prosecutor is not in a position to
dispute the said position.
In the present case, the sale-deed was executed in
favour of the petitioners on 05.07.2004, whereas the complaint
against them was filed on 19.01.2008 and the cognizance was
taken by the trial court on 10.02.2009.
(3 of 3) [CRLMP-6891/2021]
It is not in dispute that the punishment provided for the
offence punishable under section 3(3)(6) of the Act of 1961 is
one year. It is noticed that it is not mentioned in the complaint
that on which date the petitioners entered into restricted area
and the lower court did not take into consideration the delay
caused in filing the complaint and took cognizance against the
petitioners after the period of limitation as provided under
clause(b) of sub-section (2) of section 468 CrPC.
In view of above facts and the decisions rendered by
this Court in the aforesaid identical matters, this criminal misc.
petition is allowed and the proceedings of Cr. Regular Case
No.499/2012 pending before the Court of Judicial Magistrate
Chouhtan, District Barmer against the petitioners are dropped.
Stay petition is disposed of.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
86-praveen/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
