IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT MONDAY, THE 7TH JULY 2008 / 16TH ASHADHA 1930 Crl.MC.No. 2527 of 2008() ------------------------- CC.286/2007 of JUDL. MAGISTRATE OF FIRST CLASS, KASARAGOD .................... PETITIONER: ------------ D.SOOPPY, 39 YEARS, S/O.ABDULLA ABDULA RAHIMAN, DARKAS HOUSE, KANTHAL BADOOR VILLAGE, KASARAGODE . BY ADV. SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI SRI.R.ANIL SRI.ANIL K.MOHAMMED SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. SRI.JOSEPH P.ALEX RESPONDENTS: ------------- STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA , ERNAKULAM BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. AMJAD ALI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Crl.M.C.No. 2527 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of July, 2008 O R D E R The short grievance of the petitioner in this case is that cognizance has been taken on a police report in respect of offences punishable under Section 403 and 419 I.P.C. The alleged incident took place in 1998. F.I.R. was registered on 25.3.2000. The petitioner is named in the F.I.R. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the final report submitted on 10.2.2007. The grievance of the petitioner is that the learned Magistrate, without applying the mind of the court to the provisions relating to limitation in Chapter 36 of the Cr.P.C., has taken cognizance. The petitioner wants the proceedings to be discontinued. 2. I am satisfied that appropriate directions can be issued in the matter. Has the learned Magistrate considered the question of limitation? The petitioner can certainly raise this contention before the learned Magistrate, who has to consider this question at the stage of framing charge under Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. If Crl.M.C.No. 2527 of 2008 2 there is the bar of limitation, charges cannot obviously be framed and the proceedings will have to be dropped by discharging the accused. I am satisfied that it will be better to relegate that responsibility to the learned Magistrate at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. and permit the petitioner to raise that contention before the learned Magistrate. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not satisfied as the counsel contends that this would oblige the petitioner to unnecessarily appear and seek seek regular bail. I am satisfied that appropriate observations can also be made on that aspect to avoid needless and unjustified difficulties or hardship to the petitioner. I say so because on the face of it, I find the contention raised does appear to be reasonable and requires closer scrutiny by the learned Magistrate. 4. This Crl.M.C. is dismissed, but with the specific observation that the petitioner shall be permitted to raise this contention regarding limitation at the stage of Section 239/240 Cr.P.C. and if the learned Magistrate finds the said contention to be acceptable, charges shall not be framed against the petitioner and he shall be discharged. Till such decision is taken on the question of framing charge, the personal Crl.M.C.No. 2527 of 2008 3 presence of the petitioner shall not be insisted. Coercive processes issued against the petitioner shall not be executed till that date. Till such time the petitioner shall be permitted to appear through pleader. 5. Hand over the order. (R. BASANT) Judge tm