Hanumanaram vs Basti Ram and Others

K. Bhatnagar, J.—In this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. the order dated 4.10.83 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu has been assailed on the ground that in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the learned Magistrate has wrongly applied the provisions of the limitation envisaged by Section 468 Cr.P.C. and dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner and the learned Sessions Judge has wrongly rejected the revision petition filed against that order.

On 13.8.78 the petitioner had filed a complaint u/s 447 IPC against the non-petitioner. On 5.2.88 statement of the complainant was recorded. An application u/s 468 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused on the ground that since the offence is punishable by three months in the present case one years period of limitation is allowed for takig cognizance and as the period of more than one year has passed between the date of occurrence and the date of taking cognizance i.e. 13.3.80 when process was ordered to be issued against the accused so the complaint should be dismissed. The learned Magistrate dismissed the complaint u/s 468 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 8.4.81 The aggrieved complainant preferred revision which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated 4.10.83.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that a party should not be put to suffer on account of the mistake of the Court which in the present case was in the form that despite the complaint was filed on 13.8.78 the Court did not examine the complainant and his witnesses and thus allowed time to pass which gave reason to the other side to make a prayer for dismissal of the complaint u/s 468 Cr.P.C.

Learned Counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that the complainant himself was not particular in prosecuting his case properly and was responsible for the delay.

In the impugned order the learned Sessions Judge has referred to the various dates in order to arrive at a conclusion that delay in takig cognizance was on account of lethargy on the part of the complainant and not on account or the mistake of the Court. It has been observed that in a complaint filed on 13.8.78 the complainant went on taking adjournments and till 5th January, 88, neither he examined himself not his witnesses. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the learned Judge has rightly considered it a case in which the learned Magistrate has applied the provisions of Section 468 Cr. P.C. The order call for no interference and the petition is dismissed.