HIMANSHU POKHRIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) BY means of this present C-482 application, the
applicant has prayed for quashing of entire proceeding
of Criminal Case No.3338 of 2012, State vs.
Himanshu, pending in the Court of Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate (Ist), Dehradun, relating to
offences punishable u/s 384, 385 and 120-B of I.P.C.
(2.) ACCORDING to the learned counsel for the applicant, the first information report for the alleged
cause of action, which took place on 27.6.2006, was
lodged on 24.4.2007. On 19.9.2012, the charge sheet
in respect of offences punishable u/s 384, 385 and
120-B IPC was submitted before the Court and on the same day, the Court took cognizance against the
Learned counsel for the applicant has contended the maximum punishment u/s 384, 385
and 120-B IPC is three years and therefore the learned
court, without condoning the delay, cannot take
cognizance in respect of offences punishable u/s 384,
385 and 120-B IPC as the same is barred by sub- clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. in
which period of limitation is three years, if the offence
is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year but not exceeding three years.
(3.) IN the case at hand, since the offence, under section 384, 385 and 120-B IPC, is punishable by
imprisonment for a term of three years, the period of
limitation for the purpose of taking of cognizance
would be, in terms of Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C, three
years, and prima facie it appears that before taking
cognizance, the court below did not condone the delay
in the matter by invoking section 473 of Cr.P.C. and
no order for condonation of delay has been passed in
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.