IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 69 of 2009() ----------------------- CC.295/2008 of JUDL.MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, AMABALAPUZHA .................... PETITIONER(S): ACCUSED: ----------------------------------------- ANIL KUMAR, S/O. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, SANKARAMANGALAM, KALARCODE, SANATHANPURAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.M.P.MADHAVANKUTTY SRI.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): DEFACTO COMPLAINANT & STATE: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMYA P.R., D/O. RAMACHANDRA PANICKER, THRIKARTHIKA, SANATHANAPURAM, ALAPPUZHA. 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. P.A.SALIM FOR R2 THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT, J. ---------------------- Crl.M.C.No.69 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 8th day of January 2009 O R D E R The petitioner is the sole accused facing indictment in a prosecution under Section 498A I.P.C. Cognizance has already been taken. The petitioner has already entered appearance. Trial has not commenced. The petitioner at this stage has come before this court with the plea that the prosecution is barred by limitation inasmuch as cognizance has not been taken within the period of limitation prescribed under Chapter 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Going by the averments in the complaint, the cognizance appears to be not in violation of the provisions of Chapter 36 Cr.P.C. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner relies on certain statements made by the victim during investigation which suggests that the period of limitation had already expired. I am satisfied that this is a matter which ought to be considered by the learned Magistrate. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the stage of framing charge, this question was omitted to be pointed out. I am satisfied in Crl.M.C.No.69/08 2 the facts and circumstances of this case that the petitioner must be given an opportunity to raise that contention before the learned Magistrate. I am satisfied, prima facie, that that question deserves serious consideration. 3. In these circumstances, this Crl.M.C is allowed in part. The order framing charge is set aside. The learned Magistrate is directed to consider the question of framing charge afresh permitting the petitioner to raise the plea of limitation before the learned Magistrate. Hand over copy of this order to the learned counsel for the petitioner. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) jsr Crl.M.C.No.69/08 3 Crl.M.C.No.69/08 4 R.BASANT, J. CRL.M.C.No. of 2008 ORDER 09/07/2008