- (1.) The present petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the applicants Ram Ashish and three others with the prayer to quash the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 140/07, State v. Ram Ashish and others, under Sections 323, 504 IPC pending in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mau. The brief facts of the case are that regarding an occurrence dated 1.1.1998 at 7 p.m., NCR No. 2/1998 was got registered on the same date at 10 p.m. by the complainant Ram Singh Chauhan against the applicants with the allegations that accused/applicants were preventing him to place his madai on his land and when the complainant told that it was his land on which he is placing his madai, the accused became annoyed and started abusing him and beat him by lathi-danda. On an alarm, Smt. Gujrati, the mother of the complainant came there and she was also beaten by the accused persons. After registration of the NCR in the year 1998, permission for investigation was obtained from the Judicial Magistrate, Mau on 18.10.2006 and after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet under Sections 323, 504 IPC and the Court took cognizance on 23.2.2007 of the said case. Thereafter the applicants moved an application that the prosecution was barred by time but the same was dismissed on 11.4.2008 by the learned Magistrate, against which a revision was filed, which was also dismissed by the learned lower revisional Court vide order dated 3.9.2009. Hence the present petition has been filed to quash the entire proceedings of the said case. In the counter-affidavit filed by Ram Singh, the complainant of the aforesaid case, it has been stated that the applicants who were pre-planned, assaulted him and his mother by lathi-danda, due to which they sustained injuries, who were examined by the Doctor of Primary Health Centre. It is further stated that NCR No. 1/98 was registered against the father, real uncle of the complainant and one Surendra Yadav, whereas NCR No. 2/98 was registered against the applicants in respect of the same incident happened on 1.1.1998 at 7 p.m. It is further stated that the Investigating Officer in collusion with the applicants submitted the charge-sheet as regards NCR No. 1/98 lodged from the side of the applicants against the father, real uncle of the complainant and said Surendra Yadav, whereas the Investigating Officer did not take any interest with regard to NCR No. 2/98. The complainant was in anticipation that the Investigating Officer will submit charge-sheet against the applicants as well because both the aforesaid NCRs were cross cases of the same incident. When the Investigating Officer did not do so, the complainant moved an application in the year 2006 for seeking progress report from the local police with regard to investigation of NCR No. 2/98 filed by him against the applicants and the learned Magistrate directed the local police to re-investigate in the matter and then the charge-sheet was submitted against the applicants, on which learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance vide order dated 10.11.2008, against which Criminal Revision filed by the applicants before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has also been dismissed.
(2.) Heard Sri Ravindra Nath Rai, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri M.A. Mishra, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned AGA and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that taking of the cognizance by the learned Magistrate was barred by time as the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 504 IPC, is two years and for the offence under Section 323 IPC, it is one year. Hence in view of Section 468 Cr. P.C. the limitation for taking cognizance was three years only but the cognizance was taken after a lapse of about 8 years and hence it was barred by time. He has further submitted that the learned Magistrate has illegally rejected the application of the applicants and the learned revisional Court has also dismissed the revision illegally without considering the provisions of law about limitation. He has also submitted that in view of Explanation to Section 2(d) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the report submitted in non-cognizable case by Investigating Officer should have been treated as a complaint and the police officer by whom such report was made, shall be deemed to be the complainant and hence the matter should have been proceeded as a complaint case.
(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant and learned AGA have submitted that the NCRs were registered in 1998 and order was passed by the learned Magistrate to investigate the matter but in the NCR registered against the complainant's father, his real uncle and one Surendra Yadav, charge-sheet was submitted, whereas in the NCR registered against the applicants, the Investigating Officer did not take any interest and did not submit the report. Thereafter, an application was moved before the learned Magistrate about the progress of the matter and then an order for reinvestigation was made in the year 2006 and after investigation, charge-sheet was submitted by the Investigating Officer, on which learned Magistrate has rightly taken cognizance on 23.2.2007. It is also submitted that the learned Magistrate has rightly rejected the application moved by the applicants for their discharge filed on the ground of delay in taking cognizance against them. They have also submitted that the learned lower revisional Court has also rightly rejected the revision filed by the applicants as the cognizance was legally taken by the learned Magistrate and it was delayed only due to the negligence of the Investigating agency but for no fault of the complainant. It is submitted that in view of Section 473 of Cr. P.C., the learned Court may take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interest of justice.;