HIMANSHU POKHRIYAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-1-5
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on January 17,2013

Himanshu Pokhriyal Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

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 applicant. 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 taking cognizance.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.