Gurbachan Singh vs Sant Singh

M.M. Punchhi, J.—The petitioner prays for the quashing of proceedings in a complaint raising plea of limitation.

It is beyond dispute that the petitioner in a civil litigation between the parties produced a rent receipt dated 1-7-1973. The Court of the first instance found the receipt to be a forged one. The first appellate Court as also this Court in subsequent appeals affirmed that view. The complainant then filed a complaint against the petitioner u/s 465, Penal Code. After recording preliminary evidence, process u/s 465, Penal Code, was issued against the petitioner. Before the charge could be framed, the petitioner raised the plea of limitation on the strength that Section 465 attracted a punishment of imprisonment which may extend to two years. And since limitation for the purpose was three years in accordance with Section 468(2)(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the complaint was nothing but an abuse of the process of Court.

The learned Magistrate took the view that the matter had remained sub judice before the appellate Courts in civil litigation till 18-1-1982 and thus the complaint filed on-18-8-1983 was within limitation. Before the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, the view of the learned Magistrate seemingly was not challenged but challenge to the proceedings was made on a different ground altogether and that was regarding the supposed bar to proceedings u/s 195, Criminal Procedure Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge took the view that since the forgery to the document had been committed outside Court and the document had been presented in the forged state, bar of Section 195, Criminal Procedure Code, was not attracted. View of the learned Judge is in accord with the view of this Court in Harbans Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab, .

The effort in the present petition is to I reassert the plea of limitation as negatived by the learned trial Magistrate. I fail to see how the petitioner can be permitted to raise such a plea when it has not been raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge. The order of the learned Judge is significantly silent about it. Even otherwise, it cannot be said at the present stage whether the offence committed by the petitioner falls within the ambit of S; 465, Penal Code. The learned Counsel for the respondent maintains that since the receipt was used in a Court of law, offence u/s 467, Penal Code, was made out, punishment for which is imprisonment for life or imprisonment extendable to ten . years. He further maintains that this would completely rule out the applicability of Section 468, Criminal Procedure Code.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the plea of limitation is not yet open to the petitioner, That would be a matter germane at the tune of the framing of charge. If the learned Magistrate considers this to be a case u/s 465, Penal Code, at that stage the petitioner may reiterate the plea of limitation. Presently, no such plea need be entertained in the peculiar circumstances of the case. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed.