THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Criminal Petition No.3882 of 2008 ORDER: 1 This Criminal Petition is ﬁled under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.1533 of 2007 on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned XI Metropolitan Magistrate L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. 2 Second respondent herein is the complainant and petitioners are accused 2 to 4 in the aforesaid C.C. The second respondent herein was prosecuted on a complaint ﬁled by the accused No.1 in C.C.No.1016 of 2001 along with other accused ﬁled for the oﬀence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC on the ﬁle of the Court of the learned II Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District. He was acquitted of the said charge vide judgment dated 07.12.2005. With reference to the contents made in the said C.C.No.1016 of 2001 made against the second respondent, he ﬁled the present complaint under Section 200 Cr.P.C. before the court below stating that certain defamatory allegations were made against him by all the accused in the aforesaid C.C. It is stated that he was working as an Assistant Accounts Oﬃcer in Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Hyderabad for the last 34 years and that he commands good respect and reputation in the society, among his relatives and friends. It is alleged that in view of certain defamatory allegations made against him by the petitioners herein, only to malign his character, the same resulted in prosecution in the earlier C.C.No.1016 of 2001. Alleging that as the petitioners herein have conspired to defame him, the second respondent ﬁled the aforesaid complaint. This petition is ﬁled for quashing the proceedings in the said C.C. 3 Mr. T. K. Sreedhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the complaint ﬁled against the petitioners herein is barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 468 of Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the proceedings in C.C.No.1016 of 2001 where the second respondent was an accused, were emanated pursuant to a complaint lodged in the year 1999 and as such for the purpose of limitation, the period has to be reckoned only from the year 1999 and in view of the fact that the oﬀence alleged against the petitioners will fall under Section 468 of Cr.P.C, the Court below ought not to have taken cognisance of the oﬀence in view of the expiry of three years period. In support of his argument, the learned counsel relied on a judgment of the apex Court in Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs. Ascharj Lal Chopra[1]. 4 On the other hand, the learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that all the statements are not contained in the complaint ﬁled in the year 1999 and as such the petitioner cannot seek reckoning of the limitation period only from the date of ﬁling of the complaint in the year 1999. It is submitted that in any event, it is not a case for quashing the proceedings in exercise of powers conferred under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 5 Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the complaint ﬁled by the second respondent before the Court below. The defamatory allegations alleged to have been made against him are not entirely contained in the private complaint ﬁled in the year 1999. When such allegations are made in the deposition during the course of examination in the Court, the period for computation of limitation starts from such period. It is well settled that the question of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law. In absence of any particulars with regard to the alleged date of defamatory statements, based on which the present complaint is ﬁled, it is not possible to record any ﬁnding that the complaint ﬁled by the second respondent is barred by limitation. Unless the trial is proceeded with, such question cannot be decided in this Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 6 Though the learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the judgment of the apex Court in Surinder Mohan Vikal (1 supra), but in the said case, the defamatory statement was contained in the complaint itself. In that view of the matter, the apex Court has taken the view that when the defamatory statements have been made in the complaint ﬁled against the petitioner therein, the period of computation for the purpose of limitation should be from the date of complaint, but not from the subsequent date. In that view of the matter, the judgment of the apex Court, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners. 7 As this court is of the view that the issue relating to computation of period of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, unless evidence is elicited during trial, it is not possible for this court to record a ﬁnding at this stage whether the complaint ﬁled by the second respondent is barred by limitation or not. 8 For the aforesaid reasons, I do not ﬁnd any ground to quash the impugned proceedings and accordingly this Criminal Petition is dismissed. -------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 23.11.2011 Kvsn [1] AIR 1978 Supreme Court 986