GUMAN MAL LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an application under section 482 Cr. P. C. against the order passed by the Magistrate and upheld by the sessions Court dated 9. 12. 1985 and 2. 5. 1985 in criminal case of 84 of 1984.
(2.) THE dispute between the parties i. e. the petitioner Dr. Hari Kishan Gupta and his wife Smt. Pramod Rani on the one hand and Riskant Chaturvedi respondent on the other hand relate to the strained relationship between alleged land lord and tenant. THE petitioners are not prepared to treat Chaturvedi as tenant and they alleged that he was family guest in the residential premises in 'c' Scheme Jaipur and wanted the apartment to be returned. Since Chaturvedi was not prepared to vacate the premises there were two civil suits, one by Chaturvedi for restraining Mr. Gupta and Mrs. Gupta from evicting him and other one by Mr. Gupta against Chaturvedi for possession from Chaturvedi. The parties did not stop with the civil litigation and it appears that on 28-7-82 Chaturvedi filed a report in Police Station Ashok Nagar, Jaipur with the allegation that Gupta and his wife has committed tresspass and mischief. FIR 224 of 1982 was registered investigation followed the report that no offence is made out against the accused Mr. Gupta and his wife. After this report was submitted on 4. 12. 1982 to the Magistrate concerned being Judicial Magistrate No. 12 Jaipur City, Jaipur, the papers remained pending not for a few days but for a quite some months and ultimately on 26-6-1984 Judicial Magistrate No. 12 took cognizance. This time gape between 4. 12. 1982 and 28. 6. 1984 for the allegations of offence having been committed on 28. 7. 1982 would certainly make out a case of taking cognizance after about 2 years. When the cognizance of offence was taken the learned Magistrate did not realise here is a provision of limitation under section 468 Cr. P. C. in the amended Criminal Procedure Code with powers to condone the delay under section 473 Cr. P. C. probably under the ignorance of provisions the Magistrate took cognizance but the accused then filed an application that the cognizance has been wrongly taken because on the date the cognizance was taken it has become time barred under section 468 Cr. P. C.
(3.) BOTH the learned Magistrate and Sessions Judge took the view that true it is that there was delay and it was prima facie time barred according to the provisions of section 468 Cr. P. C. because the maximum period could have been one year and the offence was punishable was not more than one years, but as it was on account of latches or inaction of the court no body should be asked or allowed to suffer and therefore the delay should be deemed to be condoned. It is precisely against these orders that the accused petitioners have come before this court and prays for invoking the extra ordinary powers known as inherent powers under section 482 Cr. P. C. There is no room for doubt that the time leg between the date of allegation of the commission of the offence and taking of cognizance is about 2 years because the offence is alleged to have been committed on 28-7-1982 and the cognizance has been taken on 28-6-1984. There is also no doubt that the two offences under Sections 448 and 426 I. P. C. for which cognizance has been taken are punishable for one year and not more than one year and therefore, the limitation is one year under section 468 Cr. P. C. ;