SHASHI KANT SHARMA - (1.) This Criminal Revision is filed by the accused-petitioner Radha Vallabh, against the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Wair, District Bharatpur, whereby that Court dismissed the application under Section 468, Cr. P.C. filed by this petitioner.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this Criminal Revision are as under :- that the comlainant filed a private complaint on 16th Spetember, 1989, before the trial court, alleging that accused had beaten him on 14-9-1989. On 18th September, 1989, that complaint, was fixed for recording statement for 4th October 1989; that, on 3rd of October, 1991, statement of complainant was recorded, on 3rd March, 1992, statement of Ganga Ram witness was recorded and on 23rd of April 1993, arguments were heard. On 26th of April, 1993, the trial court decided to issue summons against the accused persons. After that, accused persons filed an application before the trial court and prayed that in the matter, congnizance was taken on 26th April, 1993, which was time-barred, therefore, proceedings should be quashed against them.
(3.) In this revision, arguments were heard at admission stage. It is argued on behalf of revisionist that in this matter, occurrence took place on 14th September, 1989 and cognizance was taken on 26th of April, 1993, because on that date the Court decided to issue summons against the accused persons, therefore, in this matter the Court took cognizance after expiry of limitation, which was barred under Section 468, Cr. P.C. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Mohd. Sadiq v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1996 WLC (Raj) UC 691, wherein my brother Justice Dalela (the then) has referred the judgment of Hon. Supreme Court passed in Antulay v. R. S. Nayak, reported in AIR 1984 SC 718 : (1984 Cri LJ 647). Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred this Authority of Hon. Supreme Court I have also gone through this Authority. This authority is not directly on the point on S.468, Cr. P.C. In Antulay's case (supra) Hon. Supreme Court held as under :- " When a private complaint is filed, the Court has to examine the complainant on oath same in the cases set out in the proviso to Section 200, Cr. P.C. After examining the complainant on oath and examining the witnesses present, if any, meaning thereby that the witnesses not present need not be examined, it would be open to the court to judicially determine whether a case is made out for issuing process. When it is said that Court issues process, it means the court has taken cognizance of the offence and has decided to initiate the proceeding and as a visible manifestation of taking cognizance, process is issued which means that the accused is called upon to appear before the court. This may either take the form of a summons or a warrant, as the case may be.";