Criminal Misc. No. M-17700 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-17700 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:06.11.2009 Ajeet Singh and another .....Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. S.S. Deol, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Ajeet Singh and Jagtar Singh under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing the `kalandra' Annexure P.2 filed vide D.D.R. No.4 dated 29.8.2008 under Section 182 of IPC at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran as also the criminal proceedings emanating from the said `kalandra' and for setting aside the impugned order dated 29.8.2008 Annexure P.3 passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarn Taran. The facts in brief are that petitioner No.1 had lodged an FIR No.106 dated 20.11.2001 under Sections 182, 34 IPC at Police Station Goindwal Sahib, Tarn Taran against Harbhajan Singh son of Mota Singh resident of Bharowal. The FIR was cancelled on 5.1.2002 after an enquiry. On the application of Harbhajan Singh, an entry was made vide D.D.R. No.4 dated 29.8.2008 under Section 182 of IPC at Police Station Goindwal Criminal Misc. No. M-17700 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Sahib, Tarn Taran (Annexure P.1). A `Kalandra' under Section 182 of IPC was filed against the petitioners on 29.8.2008 at the said Police Station. Vide order dated 29.8.2008 (Annexure P.3), the petitioners have been summoned by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Tarn Taran. The `kalandra' proceedings filed vide Annexure P.2 are liable to be quashed qua both the petitioners on the grounds as embodied in this petition. The respondent- State did not wish to file reply. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioners eloquently urged that FIR No.106 ibid was cancelled on 5.1.2002 after due enquiry though the `kalandra' Annexure P.2 was filed on 29.8.2008 which is obviously after more than six and a half years. The period for filing the `kalandra' is one year from the date of cancellation of the F.I.R as per the provisions of 468 of Cr.P.C. Thus, axiomatically, Annexure P2 is barred by limitation. Learned State Counsel could not controvert this contention in a successful manner. I have considered this submission at a prolix length. In re: Gammi @ Gama v. State of Punjab and another, 2009(2) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 1, the police after inquiry found that FIR was false and cancellation report was filed in the Court on 15.4.2001 and, thereafter, a `kalandra' under Section 182 of IPC was prepared for taking action against the petitioner and filed in the Court on 12.8.2003. It was held that the period of limitation would commence from different dates Criminal Misc. No. M-17700 of 2009 (O&M) -3- depending upon three situations as noticed in Section 469(a)(b) and (c) of Cr.P.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 the identity of the offender. It was further held that the period of limitation to file `kalandra' was one year, which began from 15.4.2001 and thus, barred by limitation. Adverting to the instant one, the `kalandra' was presented after the lapse of more than six and half years. The afore-extracted observations squarely applies to the facts of this case. Sequelly, there can be no escape from the finding that the `kalandra' Annexure P.2 is barred by limitation. In the result, the `kalandra'/ complaint Annexure P.2 and the impugned order dated 29.8.2008 Annexure P.3 are hereby quashed. Disposed of accordingly. November 06, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE