G.S.CHAHAL,J - (1.) ONKAR Nath and others have come to this Court in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the charge framed under Sections 498-A and 406 IPC vide charge sheet Annexure P-3. The petitioners are being tried on the allegations that on May 23, 1986, Yashpal petitioner was married to Usha Rani and subsequent thereto she was maltreated by Yashpal and his other relations the present petitioners. It has been alleged that after the solemnisation of the marriage, the complainant Usha Rani was subjected to maltreatment and the petitioners had committed criminal breach of trust towards her articles of dowry. Thus, according to the complaint, there is no allegation with respect to commission of any offence on May 23, 1986. However, in the charge-sheet, the date of commission of the offence has been described as May 23, 1986.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners urges that in view of the provisions of Section 212 Cr.P.C. the charge must contain particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence which are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. Section 212 Cr.P.C. reads as follows :- "212. Particulars as to time, place and person. - (1) The charge shall contain such particulars as to the time and place of the alleged offence and the person (if any) against whom, or the thing (if any) in respect of which, it was committed, as are reasonably sufficient to give the accused notice of the matter with which he is charged. (2) When the accused is charged with criminal breach of trust or dishonest misappropriation of money or other movable property it shall be sufficient to specify the gross sum or, as the case may be, describ, the movable property in respect of which the offence is alleged to have been committed, without specifying particular items or exact dates, and the charge so framed shall be deemed to be a charge of one offence within the meaning of Section 219: Provided that the time included between the first and last of such dates shall not exceed one year." I accept the contention of the learned counsel that this provision is mandatory. In case, the charge is vague or incomplete, it will cause prejudice to the accused and effect the defence and make the trial bad. In Bhagwant Singh and anr. v. State of Punjab, 1989(2) RCR 484, Ujagar singh, J. dealing with a similar situation held that the contravention of provisions of Section 212 of the Code is fatal to the prosecution. He relied upon the judgments Jalal-ud-din v. King Emperor, AIR 1924 Lahore 616 and CN Krishna Murty v. Abdul Subban and another, AIR 1965 Mysore 128.
(3.) I accept the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners and after accepting the petition quash the charge Annexure P-3.;