Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.14588 of 2010 ====================================================== Vijay Kumar Sachdeva, son of Bishandan Sachdeva Proprietor Vijeta Medicines, I-4 Mahima Palace, Moh.-Govind Mitra Road, Patna, P.S.- Pirbahore, Dist.-Patna. .... .... Petitioner. Versus 1. State of Bihar. 2. Sudhir Kumar Singh, son of Late Sidheshwar Singh, Proprietor, Green Medical Agency, Karim Market, (Pulpar), Biharsharif, P.S.-Bihar, District-Nalanda. .... .... Opposite Parties. ====================================================== Appearance: For the Petitioner : Mr. Murari Narayan Chaudhary, Adv. For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta, A.P.P. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR TRIVEDI C.A.V. ORDER 4. 09-05-2012 Petitioner, Vijay Kumar Sachdeva has challenged order of cognizance dated 24.01.2009 passed by S.D.J.M., Nalanda at Biharsharif in connection with Complaint Case No.1170(c) of 2008 coupled with summoning of the petitioner to face trial for an offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Opposite Party No.2, Sudhir Kumar Singh claiming himself to be proprietor of Green Medical Agency, Biharsharif filed complaint petition showing the date of occurrence in between 2002 to 20th July, 2004 disclosing therein that there was business deal amongst petitioner Vijay Kumar Sachdeva. From 2003 to 19.01.2004 he had returned the medicine worth of Rs.90078.52/-. As per direction of accused he had supplied medicine worth of Rs.24886.90/- to Pankaj Kumar and medicine worth of Rs.34880.90 to Rizwi. In spite of repeated demand payment was not made. Not only this, the accused had also succeeded in obtaining purchase bill from him. Therefore, Opposite Party No.2 alleged that he has been deceived by the accused. Contention on behalf of the petitioner is that whatever allegation has been levelled in the complaint petition happens to be palpably false and the same has been levelled only to counter meet with the allegation which the petitioner had levelled against him by filing Complaint Case No.88 of 2008. It has further been submitted that there happens to be neither any entrustment nor the allegation supports any of ingredients of cheating falling within the purview of [STATUTE] . At the other hand even taking into account the version and counter version, it simply happens to be the mathematical difference in calculation. Apart from this, also submitted that instant criminal case has purposely been filed to coerce and harass the petitioner, although the nature of allegation out and out suggest civil dispute and further as the Opposite Party No.2 failed to launch money suit within the stipulated time of three years, on account of which it happens to be barred by limitation. Also submitted that the order of cognizance is hit by limitation because of the fact that the complaint was filed on 10.09.2008 and the occurrence happens to be of year 2003 so more than three years have elapsed. In spite of personal service against Opposite Party No.2, he failed to appear. Learned Additional P.P. fairly submitted that for the purpose of taking of cognizance prima facie case has to be seen which, from the order impugned appears to be fully satisfied. Hence, the order impugned is fit to be confirmed. As per section 468 Cr.P.C. there happens to be certain kind of prohibition over taking of cognizance after lapse of period of limitation so prescribed therein in a manner that for the offences punishable with fine only, it happens to be six month, for the offence punishable up to one year, one year and for the offence having punishment more than one year but up till three year, three years. Cognizance has been taken under [STATUTE] . 406 I.P.C. prescribe maximum punishment of three years or with fine or with both while 417 prescribes imprisonment of one year or with fine or with both. Therefore, cognizance was to be taken within the period of three years from the date of commission of an offence. By judicial pronouncement, the aforesaid period has further been extended in case of taking of cognizance beyond the prescribed period had the complaint been placed before the competent court within the period of limitation and for that reference may have 2007 AIR SCW 4998. Now, coming to the facts of the case, from the column of date of occurrence of complaint (Annexure-1), it is evident that it has been in between 2000 to 20th July 2004. Complaint petition shows date of filing on 10-09-2008. As such certainly the filing of complaint was beyond the period of limitation. The learned lower court while taking of cognizance did not condone the delay. As such, order impugned appears to be hit by limitation. Consequent, thereupon same is set aside. Petition is allowed. PN/- (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J)

Applicable IPC Section: 406

Statute Text:
Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code. Criminal breach of trust. Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.