Criminal Misc. No.M-20116 of 2010 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-20116 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 6.9.2011 Sukhwinder Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Joginder Kaur @ Lovely .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Vijay Lath, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.C.L.Panwar, Advocate, for respondent . **** SABINA, J. This petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C. for short) for quashing of complaint No. 49 dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 500, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) as well as summoning order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-13) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complaint in question had been filed after the expiry of period of limitation. The news item in question was published in July 2002, Criminal Misc. No.M-20116 of 2010 (O&M) 2 whereas, the impugned complaint had been filed by the complainant on 5.3.2008. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on Ram Murti and another vs. Madan Gopal 2006 (2) RCR (Criminal) 346. wherein, in para 4, it was held as under:- “As pointed out earlier, the alleged incident which led to filing of the impugned complaint, took place on 11.8.1988 whereas the complaint has been filed on 3.2.1995, i.e. Much beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Despite grant of more than one opportunities by this Court, the respondent has failed to explain as to how the learned trial Court could take cognizance of the impugned complaint despite the same having been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation.” Learned counsel has further placed reliance on Surinder Mohan Vikal vs. Ascharj Lal Chopra 1978 AIR (SC) 986, wherein, it was held as under:- “5. It will be recalled that the complaint for the commission of the offence under Sections 406/ 420 IPC was filed on March 15, 1972. It has specifically been stated in the respondent's complaint under Section 500 IPC that the defamatory matter was contained in that complaint. So, according to the complaint the offence under Section 500 IPC was committed on March 15, 1972, which was the date of the offence within the meaning of Section 469 (1) (a) of the Code, and the period of three years' limitation would be calculated with Criminal Misc. No.M-20116 of 2010 (O&M) 3 reference to that date for purposes of the bar provided by Section 468. But as has been stated, the complaint under Section 500 IPC was filed on February 11, 1976, much after the expiry of that period. It was therefore, not permissible for the court of the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the period of limitation. 6. The High Court ignored the bar of limitation on the ground that the “ cause of action for proceeding for defamation could not arise before he (respondent) was acquitted by the court of Sessions.” As the respondent was acquitted on April 1, 1975, it appears that the High Court took the view that the 'protection of Section 468 *c ) ” was not available to the appellant. We are constrained to say that the question of “cause of action” could not really arise in this case as the controversy relates to the commission of an offence. As has been stated, sub- section (1) of Section 469 of the Code specifically provides that the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468, in relation to an offender, shall commence (inter alia) on the date of the offence. It would therefore, follow that the date of the offence was March 15, 1972, when the defamatory complaint was filed in the court of the Magistrate, and that was the starting point for the purpose of calculating the three years' period of limitation. The High Court clearly erred in taking a contrary view.” Criminal Misc. No.M-20116 of 2010 (O&M) 4 Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has submitted that the complaint in question had been filed immediately after the acquittal of the complainant in the criminal proceedings and hence, was within the period of limitation. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. The news item in question was published in the news paper on 25.7.2002 (Annexure P-8). The complaint in question has, however, been filed by the respondent on 5.3.2008. Section 468 Cr.P.C. reads as under:- Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation: .- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. (2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.” Section 500 IPC reads as under:- Punishment for defamation. Criminal Misc. No.M-20116 of 2010 (O&M) 5 Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Thus, a combined reading of the above provisions would reveal that cognizance of the offence under Section 500 IPC can be taken within three years of its commission. In the present case, the complainant has filed the complaint after she was acquitted by the trial Court. However, the limitation would not run from the date the complainant has been acquitted in the criminal proceedings but would start running from the date the offence was committed. The complaint could have been filed within the period of limitation from the date the offence was committed and not from the date the complainant was acquitted by the Court. Thus, the complaint was filed after the expiry of period of limitation on 5.3.2008 although cause of action had arisen in July 2002. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No. 49 dated 5.3.2008 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 500, 34 IPC as well as summoning order dated 26.3.2009 (Annexure P-13) and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 06, 2011 anita