Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 Date of Decision: 05.08.2010 Sher Ali son of Lal Hussain, Gujjar Muslim by caste, resident of village Reruna Gurdaspur, P.S. Sadar, Ropar, District Ropar (Punjab). ... Petitioner Versus 1. State of Punjab, through Home Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Punjab, Chandigarh. 2. Station House Officer, Police Station Sadar, Ropar, District Ropar (Punjab). ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Ms. Meenu Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.S. Panwar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing Complaint/Kalandra, under Section 182 IPC, dated 12.08.03 (Annexure P2), and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, has been filed by the petitioner. 2. On 02.02.01, one Nizamuddin son of Wali Mohd., filed a complaint, on the basis whereof, FIR No. 10 dated 02.02.01, under Sections 148, 342, 363, 364, 452 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC, Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 2 Police Station Ropar, was registered, against Basira Ali, Dhani, Siphia sons of Maula Baksh, residents of village Dawaali, Police Station Sahnewal, Kamaluddin son of Ali Fariyad, Ali Din son of Basira, Kasim resident of Dhina Colony, Jalandhar, Shellow wife of Shahdin and two other persons. After the registration of the FIR, an application, was moved, by one of the accused, namely Basira, which was addressed, to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, seeking an enquiry into the false and frivolous case, registered against him, and his relatives. On receipt of the application dated 05.02.01, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ropar, marked the same to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), for detailed enquiry. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Ropar, after detailed enquiry, came to the conclusion, that the name of the complainant, was not Nijamuddin, but, Kaka son of Wali Mohd., resident of Jandiala, Police Station, Jalandhar, who gave his false name and address, and, got registered a false case, in connivance with the petitioner and Gammi. Thereafter, a cancellation report, was submitted, before the competent Court, on 15.04.01. The cancellation report, was accepted, by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rup Nagar, on 04.01.03. Thereafter, the kalandra, under Section 182 IPC, was filed, on 12.08.03, by Ramesh Kumar, ASI. 3. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and, have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that, the cancellation report, was prepared, on 15.04.01, and, was filed, in the Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 3 Court, on the same day. She further submitted that, the kalandra, was prepared for taking action, against the petitioner and others, for lodging the false complaint, and was instituted, in the Court, on 12.08.03. She further submitted that, the petitioner and other co- accused, were issued notice for 25.08.03, in pursuance whereof, they appeared and furnished the bail bonds. She further submitted that, the kalandra, under Section 182 IPC, could only be filed, within a period of one year, from the date, when the Enquiry Officer, held that, the FIR, was false. She further submitted that, the kalandra, having been filed, in the Court, on 12.08.03, the prosecution, was barred by limitation, under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. She further submitted that, since the prosecution, was barred by time, the trial Court, could not take cognizance thereof. She further submitted that, Gammi @ Gamma, co-accused of the present petitioner, also filed a petition, under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing the kalandra and the subsequent proceedings, which was accepted, by this Court, vide order dated 11.09.08. She further submitted that, continuation of the kalandra, under Section 182 IPC, is, thus, nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. 5. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, submitted that, the cause of action arose to the respondents, to file the kalandra, when the cancellation report, was accepted, by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Rup Nagar. He further submitted that, even if, the period of limitation, is computed from that date, then the prosecution, was launched, by way of filing the kalandra, Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 4 within the period of limitation. He further submitted that continuation of kalandra, would not be an abuse of process of the Court. 6. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the petition, is liable to be accepted, for the reasons, to be recorded, hereinafter. Undisputedly, FIR, was lodged, by one Nizamuddin, whose name was, later on, found to be false, and, on the other hand, he was found to be Kaka. There is, no dispute, that enquiry, was held, by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (HQ), Ropar, and, he found, that the FIR, had been falsely lodged, by alleged Nijamuddin, in connivance with the petitioner, and other co- accused. The cancellation report, in the FIR, was prepared, on 15.04.01, and, it was submitted, in the Court, on that day. The kalandra, was prepared, for taking action, against the petitioner and others, for lodging false complaint, and, was filed, on 12.08.03, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate. The maximum punishment, provided for the offence, punishable under Section 182 IPC, is six months. The prosecution, therefore, could be launched, by way of filing the kalandra, against the petitioner, within one year, from the date the cause of action accrued. For the facility of reference, the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C., are extracted, 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 Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 5 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. 469. Commencement of the period of limitation – (1) The period of limitation, in relation to an offence, shall commence- (a) on the date of the offence; or (b) where the commission of the offence was not known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to any Police Officer, the first day on which such offence comes to the knowledge of such person or to any Police Officer, whichever is earlier; or (c) where it is not known by whom the offence was committed, the first day on which the identity of the offender is known to the person aggrieved by the offence or to the Police Officer making investigation into the offence, whichever is earlier. (2) In computing the said period, the day from which such period is to be Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 6 computed shall be excluded.” 7. The perusal of the provisions of the aforesaid Sections, clearly goes, to show, that the period of limitation, in relation to an offence, would commence, from different dates, depending upon three situations, as noticed, in Section 469(a)(b)(c). Thus, the period of limitation, would commence, from the date of offence, or from some different dates, depending upon the knowledge about the offence or identity of the offender. The period of limitation, accordingly would commence, from the date of offence, if the identity of the offenders is known. After investigation of the FIR, recorded on 02.02.01, cancellation report, was filed, on 15.04.01. It means that, on 15.04.01, the respondents, came to know, that false FIR, had been got registered by alleged Nijamuddin, at the behest of the petitioner. Kalandra, under Section 182 IPC, therefore, could be filed, within a period of one year, from 15.04.01, when the respondents, came to know, with regard to the falsity of the FIR. On the other hand, it was filed, on 12.08.03, in the Court. The Court, issued notice, for 25.08.03. The kalandra, having been filed, on 12.08.03, and, cognizance thereof, having been taken, on 25.08.03, it could be said, that the prosecution, launched, was barred by limitation. In State of Punjab Vs. Sarwan Singh, 1981, Crl. L.J., 722, the Apex Court, held that, the object of Criminal Procedure Code, in putting a bar of limitation, on prosecution, was clearly, to prevent the parties, from filing cases, after a long time, as a result whereof, the material evidence may disappear and also to prevent Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 7 abuse of the process of Court, by filing vexations and belated prosecutions, long after the date of offence. In Moti Pathak and others Vs. State of U.P., 1988(2), Crimes, 659, it was held, that the plea of bar of limitation, can be raised, at any stage of proceedings, and, even when, it was not raised, the Magistrate, should have considered his power and authority, in the light of Sections 468 and 473 Cr.P.C. In Harbhajan Singh Bajwa Vs. Senior Superintendent of Police, District Patiala and another, 2000(2), RCR (Criminal), 94, the complaint, was lodged with the Police. It was found to be false and cancellation report, was submitted, in the year 1997. The prosecution of the complainant, was sought, under Section 182 IPC. It was held, by this Court, that limitation of one year, would start, when the Police filed cancellation report and not when, the Magistrate, accepted the cancellation report, in October, 1999. It was, accordingly, held that the prosecution of the complaint, would be barred, under the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C. In Jagraj Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1993(2), RCR (Criminal), 633, a similar view, was taken, by this Court, by holding, that the period of limitation of one year, would start, from the date, when Police found it to be false report. Thus, it can safely be concluded, that the prosecution launched, in this case, was barred by limitation, as envisaged by Section 468 Cr.P.C., and, as such, the Court below, could not take cognizance of the offence, under Section 182 IPC. Continuation of kalandra and the subsequent proceedings, therefore, would be nothing, but an abuse of the process of Court. The same, Criminal Misc. No. M-20262 of 2009 8 are liable, to be quashed. 8. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 20262 of 2009, is accepted. Complaint/Kalandra, under Section 182 IPC, dated 12.08.03 (Annexure P2), and all the subsequent proceedings, arising therefrom, are quashed, qua the petitioner. 9. Registry is directed, to comply with the order, by sending the copies thereof, to the Courts concerned, immediately. 05.08.2010 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE