N. N. Sharma J. - (1.) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 12-10-1984 recorded by Sri R. K. Singh, Munsif Magistrate III, Dehradun in Criminal Case no. 372 of 1984 filed by Sri Dharam Veer Singh Tyagi, O. P. no. 1 against the revisionist and four others summoning the accused on 15-11-1984 for appearance and for proceeding against them under Sections 403/406/120- IPC. Parties are inter-related. Revisionist no. 1 was married with late Ajit Kumar, son of Dharamveer Singh on 22-2-1977. Ajit Kumar died in an accident on 7-5-1979. It was laid in the complaint that accused nos.2 to 5 hatched a criminal conspiracy with dishonest intention for their unlawful gain and to cause wrongful loss to the complainant and his family and, therefore, approached the complainant's house in police quarters situated in the compound of police station Kotwali Dehradun on 2-5-1979 and misrepresented before Smt.Gyan Bala, wife of complainant that Smt. Hemlata was to participate in a marriage of near relation in district Ghaziabad on 8-5-1979 and so persuaded Smt.Gyan Bala to give her personal jewellery and clothes details of which have been given in para 4 of the complaint to Smt. Hemlata so that she may wear and use it in the said marriage to keep up the dignity of the family before others. All the ornaments and clothes were entrusted to Hemlata by Smt. Gyan Bala. These articles were never returned, although Smt. Hemlata and co-accused visited the house of complainant on 7-5-1980. When the aforesaid articles worth Rs. 41, 550/- were not returned despite the efforts of complainant and his wife a complaint was filed on 18-9-1984 under Sections 403, 406/34 and 120-B IPC.
(2.) AN application dated 12-10-1984 was also filed by counsel for the complainant to condone the delay in filing the complaint vide ANnexure-CA 1. Learned Magistrate considered the reasons for the delay as given by complainant and his wife and Mandlal in their statements under Section 200 and 202, CrPC and held that the delay has been properly explained and so in exercise of his power conferred by Section 473 CrPC the learned .Magistrate treated the ground as sufficient for proceeding against them under Sections 403/406/34 and 120-B IPC and summoned them for appearance on 15-11-1984. In this Court parties filed affidavit, counter-affidavit and rejoinder- affidavit aiongwith annexures in support of their rival contentions. On behalf of revisionists it was pointed out that Section 403 IPO provided a maximum sentence of two years ; Section 406, IPC, provided a maximum sentence of three years and Section 120-B, IPC provides that in such a case the offence shall also be punishable in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. Section 468, CrPC (Act no. 2 of 1974) reads as below :- " Section 468 (I). Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence; of the category specified in subsection (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be :- (a) Six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only ; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a trem exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. "
(3.) THUS according to the Section it was not open to the court to take cognizance of the offence which was punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years after efflux of three years. According to Annexure-I (Copy of complaint filed by revisionist aiongwith stay application) the offence took place on 2-5-1979 ; complaint was filed on 18-9-1984. No explanation for the delay was laid in the complaint. Annexure-II copy of plaint of Misc. Case no. 65/80 was filed by the revisionist to show that Smt. Hemlata Tyagi had already filed a suit against opposite parties for recovery of articles including the ornaments on 11-12-1980 in Ohaziabad. Under such circumstances it is obvious that Section 468, CrPC aforesaid placed a bar on the jurisdiction of a court in taking cognizance of the aforesaid offences.;