SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J. - (1.) THIS application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is filed for quashing the criminal Case No. 346 of 2006, (State v. Ram Siya and others), under sections 324, 323, 504 IPC, pending before the Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 13, Fatehpur.
(2.) THE brief facts as alleged in this application are as follows - The alleged incident took place on 4.11.2002 at 5 p.m. wherein opposite party No. 2 sustained injuries caused by the ap­plicants, therefore N.C.R. No. 76 of 2002 was lodged on the same day at P.S. Gazipur District Fatehpur, under sections 323, 504, IPC against the applicants. After two and half years, the opposite party No. 2 moved an application on 18.2.2005 before the concerned Court under section 155(2) Cr.P.C. for a direction to the concerned po­lice for investigation and for adding section 324 IPC. In pursuance of the aforesaid application the learned Magistrate by order dated 30.3.2005 directed the S.H.O. P.S. Gazipur to add section 324 IPC and inves­tigate the matter. Opposite party No. 2 was medically examined on 4.11.2002 at 11.30 p.m. and injury No. 2 was shown as incised wound and remaining other injuries were shown as contused swelling and duration has been mentioned about 3 days back. Investigating Officer after recording the statements filed the charge-sheet on 19.9.2006, on the basis of which the Court below took cognizance on 13.11.2006 and summoned the accused under sections 323, 504, 324, IPC. Learned Counsel for the appli­cants stated that in view of section 468 Cr.P.C. the Court was barred from taking cognizance of the alleged offence under sections 323, 324 and 504, IPC after the ex­piry of 3 years. Learned Counsel for the applicants elaborating his submission has contended that the date of occurrence is alleged to be 4.11.2002 and the cognizance is taken much after a lapse of 4 years on 19.9.2006. As such no cognizance could have been taken against the applicants after 3 years as provided under section 468 Cr.P.C. Thus the order taking cognizance and summoning the accused is illegal and the criminal proceedings pending before the Court below are liable to be set aside.
(3.) IT is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the incident occurred at 5 p.m. on 4.11.2002 and N.C.R. was lodged at 11.20 on 4.11.2002, which is not possible. It is further submitted that the application under sec­tion 155(2) was filed after more than 2 years without explaining any reasons for delay but still the Magistrate directed the concerned Police Officer to investigate and register the FIR. It is further submitted that the injured was examined on 4.11.2002 at 1.30 p.m. and the doctor opined that the duration of the injuries caused to the op­posite party is about 3 days back. As such the report of the doctor also shows that the alleged incident never occurred on 4.11.2002. It is further contended that the case filed against the applicants by oppo­site party No. 2 is to counterblast and pressurize the applicants to withdraw the criminal case against the opposite party No. 2 which was filed by the applicant on 3.11.2002, one day earlier to the FIR lodged by the opposite party No. 2.;