B.R. Arora, J. - (1.) The petitioner, by this miscellaneous petition, has challenged the order dated 1.7.92, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaitaran, by which the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate framed the charges under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. against the petitioners.
(2.) The order has been challenged on various grounds including the ground that the learned Magistrate, while framing the charges, has not applied its judicious mind and the facts, disclosed in the evidence collected by the Investigating Agency, are not sufficient to frame the charges against the petitioners under Sections 498-A and 406 I.P.C. as the facts do not constitute these offences or any other offence. It has, also, been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the cognizance of the offences, taken by the learned Magistrate, is clearly barred by time and the learned Magistrate did not consider the case of the petitioners regarding his objections raised and left the matter to be decided at the final stage. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners further is that the marriage took place on 1.3.79 and the complainant left the house of her own accord on 21.7.81. She moved an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. for the grant of maintenance on 29.4.83, and the reply to this application was filed by the petitioner on 5.1.84. The statements were recorded on 23.2.84, and the application was allowed on 18.3.74(84), and the maintenance of Rs. 400/- per month was granted by the learned Magistrate, which was reduced to Rs. 350/- per month in the revision. The ex-parte decree of judicial separation on the ground of desertion was granted in favour of the petitioner on 7.7.84, while the present F.I.R. was lodged on 6.2.90, which was registered on 19.2.90, which was registered on 19.2.90, which is clearly barred by limitation as per the provisions of Section 468(2) Cr.P.C.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;