(1.) Leave granted.
(2.) Two cops who are caught in the dock of a Criminal Court want to pre-empt the trial on the ground of limitation. But the trial Court and the High Court did not accede to their plea. Hence they are now before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the High Court. How they got themselves enmeshed in the cobweb of the criminal proceedings can be narrated in brief:
(3.) First appellant was the Sub-Inspector of Police and second appellant was a Police Constable attached to Perambra Police Station situated in a moffusil centre within the Calicut District (Kerala). First respondent, a middle aged shopkeeper of Perambra, was living with his wife and three children within the limits of the said Police Station. On 1-9-1995 the first respondent (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') filed a complaint against the two appellants before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class Perambra complaining that the appellants have committed offences under Sections 325, 342, 330 and 506(1), IPC. The First Class Magistrate after examining the complaint on oath and after taking cognizance of the said offences issued process to the appellants. They entered appearance in the Magistrate's Court and raised preliminary objection that the Magistrate should not have taken cognizance of the offences in view of the bar contained in Section 64(3) of the Kerala Police Act (for short 'the KP Act') which fixed a period of six months from the date of commission of the offence for taking cognizance thereof. The Magistrate overruled the objections. Appellants then moved the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code') for quashing the criminal proceeding initiated by the complainant. They contended that the Magistrate could not take cognizance of the offences as the complainant was filed only after the expiry of six months of the alleged commission of the offences. A learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the petition as per the impugned order.