J.S. Jaggi vs Sanand Singh Shrinet and Another

N.K. Gupta, J.—By this criminal revision the applicant has challenged the order dated 12.12.2011 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandla (Shri Mahendra Kumar Uike) in Criminal Case No. 658/2002 whereby his application u/s 468 of Cr.P.C. was dismissed. The prosecution case, in short, is that the respondent No. 1 was held on 7.3.1990 by the applicant and his companions. No arrest was shown. He was kept in the custody for 11 days, but neither he was produced in any Court nor any remand was obtained. When a search warrant was issued by the Magistrate, then the respondent No. 1 was kept at unknown place for two days so that he could not be found in the police custody during the search. A petition of habeas corpus was moved before the High Court in which it was directed that an enquiry be made by the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned and a report be submitted. In that enquiry one Haresh Chand Tiwari gave a false statement and thereafter fine was imposed in that petition against the applicant. On 20.12.1994 the respondent No. 1 moved a complaint against the applicant and other two accused persons for commission of offence punishable under Sections 344, 346 and 191 of IPC. The trial Court registered the case against the applicant for the offence punishable under Sections 344 and 346 of IPC, whereas the case u/s 193 of IPC was registered against one of the accused.

The applicant has moved an application u/s 468 of Cr.P.C. that the offences under Sections 344 and 346 were punishable with a maximum period of not more than three years'' rigorous imprisonment, and therefore according to the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C., no Court could take cognizance of the case after three years of the incident, and therefore the complaint was barred by limitation. The trial Court after considering the application of the applicant found that the offence u/s 193 of IPC was punishable with seven years rigorous imprisonment and the complaint was within limitation, therefore the application was dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that there was two different cause of actions. One for wrongful confinement done by the accused No. 1 and 2 and that offence was concluded after release of the respondent No. 1. Second cause of action arose against the accused No. 3, who gave a false evidence before the CJM concerned, and therefore both the offences could not be tried in the same case, because the cause of actions were different. It is further submitted that the offences under Sections 344 and 346 of IPC were punishable for not more than three years RI, and therefore limitation for filing of the complaint was three years, and therefore the complaint against the applicant was barred by limitation.

The learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 has submitted that the complaint was properly filed and it was within time.

After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that the alleged offence done by the applicant was under Sections 344 and 346 of IPC, and therefore in a complaint limitation cannot be considered with the help of offence under Section193 of IPC, because neither the applicant committed the offence u/s 193 of IPC nor he was in the conspiracy for that offence. The offence committed by the applicant was completed on release of the respondent No. 1, and therefore if the complaint is registered for the offence u/s 193 of IPC against the accused No. 3, then the limitation of the complaint cannot be computed for the applicant with the help of offence u/s 193 of IPC.

So far as the limitation of the present case is concerned, the offence u/s 344 of IPC is punishable with a sentence of three years RI, but the penal provision of the offence punishable u/s 346 of IPC is not similar to the offence u/s 344 of IPC. The provision of Section 346 of IPC could be perused separately, which is as under:-

Wrongful confinement in secret.--Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.

According to the provisions, an additional sentence of two years may be imposed to the accused, who committed the offence of wrongful confinement otherwise, hence where the applicant is tried for the offence u/s 344 of IPC for which the maximum punishment of three years RI is given, if charge u/s 346 of IPC is added, then maximum punishment, which could be given would be 3 + 2 = 5 years, and therefore if the case is registered under Sections 344 and 346 of IPC, then the limitation of the complaint should be counted according to the sentence of five years. As per the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C., if any offence is punishable for more than three years imprisonment, then there is no limitation. Hence since the offences under Sections 344 and 346 of IPC were considered simultaneously, then the total maximum punishment was of five years RI, and therefore no provision of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. was applicable in the present case for computation of any limitation. For taking cognizance in such a case, there was no time limitation prescribed under the provisions of Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it is apparent that the complaint filed by the respondent No. 1 was within time for the offence under Sections 344 and 346 of IPC. The trial Court did not give any reason as mentioned above, but still the trial Court has rightly dismissed the application u/s 468 of Cr.P.C. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the order passed by the learned JMFC Mandla. Consequently, the revision filed by the applicant cannot be accepted. Hence, it is hereby dismissed. A copy of this order be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information with a direction that the trial Court may proceed with the trial against the applicant No. 1 also.