D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) HEARD the parties.The petitioners have filed the instant application, invoking the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the entire criminal proceedings in respect of Complaint Case No. 315 of 2001 (T. R. No. 1250 of 2002) and also the order dated 30.1.2002 passed by the learned Sub -Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro whereby summons were issued to the petitioners directing them to face trial for the offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The aforesaid order has been assailed mainly on the ground that the trial court has erred in taking cognizance of the offences beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and also on the additional ground that even on the basis of the allegations in the complaint petition as made by the opposite party No. 2, no offence whatsoever is made out against the petitioner and further, that the allegations being essentially in relation with the matrimonial dispute, the compromise which was affected between the complainant and the accused person -petitioner ought to have been considered by the trial court for dropping the entire proceedings.
(2.) THE facts of the case stated briefly are that the opposite party No. 2 -complainant had filed the aforementioned complaint case against the petitioner and four other co -accused persons on 11.10.2001 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bokaro, alleging, inter alia, that her marriage with the accused No. 1, namely, the present petitioner, was solemnized about 18 years ago according to Hindu Rites and Customs. After marriage she began residing at her matrimonial house, but since she could not bear any child, she was ill -treated, neglected and subjected to various acts of cruelty both mentally or physically by her husband, parents -in -law and brother -in -law. A demand for Rajdoot Motorcycle and a sum of Rs. 10,000/ - was also made by the husband and in -laws and non -fulfillment of the demand led to more tortures and cruelty inflicted on her. Eventually, the complainant was brought by her husband -petitioner to her father's house on 15.1.1998 after illegally retaining her entire personal belongings including her gold ornaments, and she was left with a warning that she would not be allowed to return to her matrimonial house without the demand being fulfiled. A compromise between the spouse was attempted by the complainant's father and other witnesses, but the attempt had failed. Later, the husband married another lady by way of second marriage even during the subsistence of his matrimonial relation with the complainant. In her statement recorded on solemn affirmation during inquiry conducted by the trial court under Section 202 Cr.P.C., the complainant and her witnesses had acknowledged that the complainant has been living at the house of her parents since the date she was brought and left there and two years prior to the filing of the complaint, a Panchyat meeting was called, but the husband petitioner refused to comply with the direction of the Panchyat. On considering the statements of the complainant and the witnesses recorded on solemn affirmation, the learned trial court recorded its observation that the statements and evidences attribute misconduct only against the husband and therefore had proceeded to record that a prima facie case appears against the husband -petitioner for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Accordingly the remaining persons, who are also cited as accused were not proceeded against. Mr. A.K. Chatruvedi, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that even according to the own admission of the complainant she was brought by the petitioner to her father's house on 15.1.1998 and thereafter she never returned to her matrimonial house. Obviously the alleged acts constituting the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. relate to the period prior to 15.1.1998 and not after. The punishment for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C. is three years only whereas punishment for the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is six months. Learned Counsel points out that cognizance of the offence should have been taken within period of limitation, which for the offence under Section 498A I.P.C,as prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is three years only. Learned Counsel points out further that the complaint was filed by the opposite party No. 2 on 11.10.2001 which is itself beyond the period of three years computed even from 15.1.1998. While taking cognizance the learned court below did not extend the period of limitation as per the provisions of Section 473 Cr.P.C. Likewise no extension of the period of limitation in respect of the offence under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act was made prior to the taking cognizance of the offences by the learned court below and therefore the cognizance being hit by the rule of limitation, the entire proceeding is liable to be quashed. Learned Counsel adds further that even during the pendency of the proceedings, the complainant -opposite party No. 2 had filed a petition under Section 257 Cr.P.C. before the trial court on 27.1.2003 stating therein that an out of court settlement was arrived at between her and her husband and she does not want to proceed any further against him and had prayed for allowing her to withdraw her complaint case. This fact has also been admitted by the witness examined on behalf of the complainant. Learned Counsel submits that even in this view of the matter the learned trial court ought to have dropped the proceedings considering the fact of compromise between the spouse and even otherwise, where the complainant has herself declared her unwillingness to proceed with the case, the trial would never lead to conviction of the accused -petitioner in the said case and as such the continuance of the proceedings would be not only a futile exercise but also abuse of the process of the court. Learned Counsel contends that this is a fit case therefore for invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court for quashing the entire proceedings.
(3.) MR . A.K. Sahani, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite party No. 2 does not refute the claim of the petitioner in respect of a petition for withdrawal of the case purported to have been filed by the complainant before the trial court. However, he has seriously challenged the ground of the petitioner in respect of limitation. The contention of Sahani is that the cruelty did not stop on the date when the petitioner had brought and left the opposite party No. 2 at her father's place on 15.1.1988. Rather, it had continued even thereafter as because the opposite party No. 2 was still expecting that her husband would come and take her back and restore conjugal relation and in continuous and persistent efforts she had even called for a Panchyat which was held less than two years prior to the date of filing of the complaint petition and the petitioner -husband having failed to honour the direction of the Panchyat, had caused further mental cruelty to the complainant.;