Kumar vs State by Inspector of Police and Parvathy

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Seeking to quash the F.I.R. pertaining to Crime No. 542/2001 on the file of the Inspector of Police, E4

Maduravoyal Police Station, registered for the offence u/s 417 I.P.C., the petitioner/accused has filed this petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C.

The main thrust of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the offence u/s 417 I.P.C. was alleged to have been committed

during the period 1995-96 and the complaint lodged on 11.6.2001 in pursuance of which, the investigation was commenced in the above crime

number, was filed beyond period of limitation and as such, the said complaint has to be quashed in view of the bar contained in Section 468

Cr.P.C.

I heard the counsel for the petitioner and the respondents in extenso. They also placed the plethora of decisions to substantiate their respective

pleas.

On perusal of the complaint which has been registered in Crime No. 542/2001 given by Parvathy, the second respondent, it is noticed that there

are allegations to the effect that the accused/petitioner promised Parvathy, the second respondent/de facto complainant that he would marry her

and on the basis of false representation and on his inducement, she shared bed with him and consequently, she became pregnant and due to the

pregnancy she gave birth to a child on 2.6.1996 and even after the birth of the child, he did not keep up promise and ultimately, told her that he

would not marry her. This constrained her to lodge a complaint. The Inspector of Police, E4 Maduravoyal Police Station, the first respondent, after

obtaining the orders from the Magistrate by the requisition dated 8.6.2001, registered the complaint on 11.6.2001 for the offence u/s 417 I.P.C.

At this stage, the petitioner has filed this application before this Court on 25.6.2001 seeking for quashing of the complaint on the ground that it is

barred by limitation.

On going through the records and the decisions cited by the counsel for the parties, it is to be stated that the question of limitation cannot be

raised, since the stage of taking cognizance has not yet been reached. The bar on taking cognizance after the period of limitation as contemplated

u/s 468 Cr.P.C. would have to be considered only on the charge sheet being filed by the police. Admittedly, the case is still under investigation.

Though it is true that the offence u/s 417 I.P.C. would be punishable for one year and the complaint must be taken on file for that offence within

one year, this Court would not be able to decide the question at this stage, since the police may ultimately come to the conclusion not to file the

charge sheet as no materials are available, or they may file the charge sheet for the graver offence which would not attract Section 468 Cr.P.C., or

they may approach the Court seeking for extension of time for taking cognizance u/s 473 Cr.P.C.

It is settled law as laid down in RAKESH KUMAR JAIN v. STATE THROUGH CBI, NEW DELHI 2000(3) CRIMES 161, (ARUN

VYAS v. ANITA VYAS 1999 S.C.C.629 , Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt) Vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy and Others, and Bhagirath Kanoria and

Others Vs. State of M. P., that the complainant or a prosecuting agency has, under law, a right to seek for extension of time u/s 473 Cr.P.C. by

satisfying the Magistrate on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay was explainable which was occasioned on account of various

bona fide reasons. Further, it has been held in SMT. VANKA RADHAMANOHARI v. VANKA VENKATA REDDY AND OTHERS 1993

L.W.(Crl.) 233(SC) as follows:

In view of S. 473, a Court can take cognizance of an offence not only when it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the

delay has been properly explained, but even in absence of proper explanation if the Court is satisfied that it is necessary so to do in the interests of

justice.

Therefore, I do not find any merit in this petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. The first respondent is directed to continue the

investigation and file the final report in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.