Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 8.9.2011 Bhag Singh and others ......Petitioners Versus Ram Chand @ Ram Singh .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.ADS Sukhija, Advocate, for the petitioners. None for respondents . **** 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. 138 dated 26.7.2003 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 501/ 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) as well as summoning order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioners were summoned to face the trial under Section 500 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that earlier a complaint was filed by Ram Chand @ Ram Singh under Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) 2 Sections 500/ 501/ 120-B IPC (Annexure P-1). However, the said complaint was dismissed in default vide order dated 11.7.2003 (Annexure P-2). However, the complainant again filed another complaint in question against the petitioners under Section 501/ 120- B IPC on the same allegations (Annexure P-3). The complaint was liable to be quashed as the same had been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The alleged allegation had been levelled 8.6.1999, whereas, the complaint had been filed after a long delay in the year 2003. 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) 3 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 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 Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) 4 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.” None has appeared on behalf of the respondent despite service. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed. The allegations in dispute were levelled against the deceased complainant by the petitioners on 8.6.1999. The complaint in question has, however, been filed by the respondent on 26.7.2003. 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; Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) 5 (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. 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 earlier complaint filed by the complainant under Sections 500, 501/ 120-B was dismissed in default and the complaint in question has been filed after the expiry of the period of limitation. The limitation would not run from the date the earlier complaint was dismissed in default 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. Thus, the complaint was filed after the expiry of period of limitation on 26.7.2003 although cause of action had arisen in June, 1999. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Complaint No. 138 dated 26.7.2003 (Annexure P-3) under Sections 501/ 120-B Criminal Misc. No.M-4352 of 2008 (O&M) 6 IPC as well as summoning order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure P-4), whereby the petitioners were summoned to face the trial under Section 500 IPC and all the subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, are quashed. (SABINA) JUDGE September 08, 2011 anita