Criminal Misc. No. 7122-M of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. 7122-M of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision:28.05.2008 Kuldip Singh .....Petitioner Vs. Surinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present:- Mr. I.S.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.P.S.Bal, Advocate for the respondent. **** RAJESH BINDAL J. The prayer in the present petition is for quashing of order dated 21.1.2006 passed by Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phillaur in criminal complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The complaint was filed under Sections 406, 494, 498-A and 506 IPC. However, the petitioner was summoned, vide impugned order dated 21.1.2006, only for offence committed under Section 498-A IPC. Briefly, the facts are that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 8.8.1976 and out of the wedlock one daugther Bhawanjit Kaur and one son Kirandip Singh were born. Due to temperamental differences, the parties were unable to live together. The petitioner arranged a separate residence for the respondent and in the presence of respectables and relations, the petitioner gave his 10 kanals and 4 marlas of land to the respondent. As the mutation of the land so given by the petitioner to the respondent was still standing in the name of the petitioner, a civil suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioner on 8.5.1993 for declaration to the effect that the plaintiff therein/ the respondent is owner in possession of the land measuring 10 kanals 4 marlas situated at Village Sudhar, Tehsil Jagraon District Ludhiana. It was specifically stated by the respondent in the suit that as the parties could not live together because of certain differences and temperamental problems, the petitioner arranged a separate residence for the respondent and in the presence of respectables and relations, the petitioner gave the suit land to the respondent as lump-sum Criminal Misc. No. 7122-M of 2006 -2- maintenance in June, 1991 and since then, the same is in possession of the respondent. Though the petitioner agreed to get the mutation also sanctioned but on his failure necessity to file the suit arose. Immediately on appearance, the petitioner through his attorney admitted the claim of the respondent and the suit was decreed on 16.9.1993. The relevant part of the judgment of the learned Sub Judge II Class, Jagraon is extracted below:- “3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendant, Shri Mohinder Singh attorney of the defendant appeared and filed written statement admitting claim of the plaintiff. Mohinder Singh attorney of the defendant also appeared in the Court on 2.9.93 and made statement that he has no objection if the suit of the plaintiff is decreed and admitted relationship between the plaintiff and defendant. 4. I have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. From the admitted written statement and statement of the defendant, this fact is clear that the parties are not at issue on any point or fact or law. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for declaration to the effect that she is the owner in possession of the land measuring 10K-4M fully detailed and described in the head note of the plaint subject to the rights of any rightful owner or changes and encumbrances, if any, over the suit land. However, it is made clear that this decree is entirely based on the admission of attorney of the defendant.” In spite of the fact that the parties were living separate since 1991 and the petitioner had transferred land in favour of the respondent as permanent alimony, still nearly 14-15 years thereafter, the impugned complaint came to be filed in which the petitioner was summoned only for offence committed under Section 498-A IPC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a sole argument that the filing of complaint by the respondent against the petitioner is patently time barred considering the provisions of Section 468(2)(c) of the Criminal Misc. No. 7122-M of 2006 -3- Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, `the Code'). The submission is that the petitioner has been summoned to face trial under Section 498-A IPC. The maximum punishment for the offence under the Section is upto three years imprisonment and for any offence with punishment up to three years imprisonment, the complaint could be filed within a period of three years. In the present case, the complaint having been filed nearly 14-15 years after the parties had separated, the same is clearly time barred. Accordingly, the summoning order deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel for the respondent though could not dispute the fact of filing of suit by the respondent and the decree passed therein, however, he submitted that without getting divorce from the respondent, the petitioner contracted second marriage and, accordingly, he is guilty of offence committed under Section 494 IPC. As at the relevant time, the respondent could not produce evidence in that regard, the petitioner was not summoned. However, later on the respondent filed Criminal Misc. No.17452-M of 2006 before this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.3.2006 with liberty to move an application before the Court on the basis of the marriage certificate etc. The progress thereafter is not known to the counsel for the respondent. He also raised objection about the maintainability of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C stating that the petitioner had effective alternative remedy of revision before the learned Sessions Court. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that as far as summoning of the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC is concerned, the same is totally illegal for the reason that the complaint filed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 498-A IPC was clearly time barred. Undisputedly, the parties were living apart since 1991. There is nothing on record to suggest that they had any communication amongst them thereafter. Once the parties were not in touch, there was no question of demand of any dowry. The complaint having been filed nearly 14-15 years after the parties started living separate in terms of mutual settlement is certainly beyond the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) of the Code. Criminal Misc. No. 7122-M of 2006 -4- Learned Court below fell in error in summoning the petitioner to face trial for offence committed under Section 498-A IPC. Accordingly, the impugned summoning order dated 21.1.2006 passed by the Court below is set aside. However, this Court is not expressing any opinion on any other offences committed by the petitioner as were alleged by the respondent in the complaint filed, keeping in view the subsequent development of filing of Criminal Misc. No.17452-M of 2006 by the respondent before this Court. Issue regarding maintainability is also not being dealt with keeping in view that present petition is pending before this Court for the last two years and the issue raised is legal. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. May 28, 2008 ( RAJESH BINDAL ) renu JUDGE