1 1034.11 CWP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1034 OF 2011 Bhagwan S/o Shivaji Devkar & others PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & another RESPONDENTS ..... Shri R.R. Imale, Advocate for petitioners Shri N.H. Borade, APP for respondent / State ..... CORAM : U.D. SALVI, J. DATED : 28 th November, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. Perused petition and annexures thereto. 2. The petitioners/ accused are seeking discharge in R.C.C. No. 489/2008, lodged for the commission of offences under Section 498-A, 323, 504 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mantha, District Jalna on the ground that the cognizance of the said offences were taken after the lapse of period of limitation 2 1034.11 CWP prescribed under Section 469 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 in her complaint dated 04-12-2003, lodged with Mantha Police Station made accusations of matrimonial cruelty and she being driven out from her matrimonial home, as a result thereof some three years prior to the complaint; and by virtue of Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the learned trial Court ought not to have taken the cognizance of the said offences and rejected the application of the petitioners seeking their discharge on the said ground in R.C.C. No. 489/2008. It is further submitted that the learned Sessions Judge at Jalna erred in rejecting Criminal Revision Application No. 01/2011 preferred against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mantha, District Jalna on 14-12-2010, rejecting the discharge application in Exhibit 26 R.C.C. No. 489/2008. 4. Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mantha, District Jalna and learned Sessions Judge at Jalna considered the rulings of the Apex Court in Anita Vyas’s case (Arun Vyas V. Anita Vyas; 1999 Cri.L.J. 3479) and observed that in the cases of such kind it would be miscarriage of justice to throw the aggrieved 3 1034.11 CWP woman-complaining of matrimonial cruelty out of Court,on the ground of limitation. 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Aruna Vyas’s case (Supra) interpreted Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and made following observations : “ It may be noted here that Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, which extends the period of limitation is in two parts. The first part contains non obstante clause and gives overriding effect to that section over S. 468 to 472. The second part has two limbs. The first limb confers power on every competent court to take cognizance of an offence after the period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained and the second limb empowers such a court to take cognizance of an offence of it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that it is necessary so as to do in the interest of justice. It is true that the expression “in the interest of justice” in Section 473 cannot be interpreted to mean in the interest of prosecution. What the Court has to see “interest of justice’. The interest of justice demands that the court should protect the oppressed and punish the 4 1034.11 CWP oppressor/offender. In complaints under Section 498-A the wife will invariably be oppressed, having been subjected to cruelty by the husband the in-laws. It is therefore, appropriate for the Courts, in case of delayed complaints, to construe liberally Section 473 Criminal Procedure Code, in favour of wife who is subjected to cruelty if on the facts ad in the circumstances of the case it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice. When the conduct of the accused is such that applying rule of limitation will given an unfair advantage to him or result in miscarriage of justice, the court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of period of limitation in the interests of justice. This is only illustrative not exhaustive.” Applying the above said ratio, the Courts below had rightly rejected the plea of the petitioners for discharge on the ground of limitation. 6. No interference is, therefore, warranted. Criminal Writ Petition No. 1034/2011 stands dismissed in limine. ( U.D. SALVI, J. ) SDM* November-11