H.R. Panwar, J.- - (1.) By the instant criminal miscellaneous petition under Section 482 CrPC, accused-petitioners have challenged the orders dated 22.07.2004 and 14.12.2004 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kuchaman City (for short, "the trial Court" hereinafter) in Criminal Case No. 151/2004. By the impugned order dated 22.07.2004, the trial Court took cognizance of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149 Indian Penal Code against the petitioners. By the impugned order dated 14.12.2004, the trial Court rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 468 CrPC and allowed the application filed by the prosecution under Section 473 CrPC.
(2.) The facts of case, relevant and necessary for disposal of this miscellaneous petition, are that complainant Tej Singh Rajput lodged in FIR with Police Station, Kuchaman City on 16.12.1998 stating therein that in the preceding night, when he was coming from village Rasal with Rs. 30,000/-, the accused-petitioners came in jeeps and blocked his jeep. The accused-petitioners alighted from the jeeps, pulled the complainant out of the jeep, hurried abuses and threatening his life inflicted Farsi blows on his person. They also gave beatings to his driver. When some persons came and tried the intervene, the accused-petitioners fled away after snatching Rs. 30,000/- which he had brought from one Bhagirath Singh of village Rasal. After investigation, the police filed challan against the petitioners on 22.07.2004 for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323/149 Indian Penal Code without any information to the petitioners. The learned trial Court, vide impugned order dated 22.07.2004, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and issued bailable warrant. The petitioners filed an application under Section 468 CrPC for dropping the criminal proceedings against them on the ground that the FIR was lodged in 16.02.1998 whereas the challan was filed on 22.07.2004, which is beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC. Simultaneously, the prosecution filed an application under Section 473 Cr PC for condoning the delay. The trial Court, vide impugned order dated 14.12.2004 rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 468 Cr PC and allowed the application under Section 473 CrPC filed by the prosecution and condoned the delay in filing the challan.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Orders impugned. Section 468 CrPC reads as under:- "468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in Sub-section (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 not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. (3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment, or as the case may be, the most severe punishment.";