CRM M-998 of 2014 [1].IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-998 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 5, 2014 Boota Singh …..Petitioner versus State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE Mr.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI.
-.- Present:- Mr.Birinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.C.S.Brar, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.R.V.S.Chugh, Advocate.
-.- M.M.S.BEDI, J.
(ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Manpreet Kaur alleging that she was married to petitioner on February 21, 2007.
A son was born out of the wedlock.
There are allegations against the petitioner that he had given beatings to the complainant besides there being allegations of demand of dowry and a sum of Rs.1 lac having been paid.
The complainant was allegedly thrown out of Gupta Sanjay 2014.05.07 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-998 of 2014 [2].the house alongwith the minor child.
Complainant is staying with her parents alongwith the minor child.
Counsel for the petitioner has inter-alia argued that there are vague and uncertain allegations against the petitioner and his family membeRs.The co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail.
Learned counsel has emphasized that it is specifically mentioned in the FIR that on account of non-fulfilling the demands by the parents of the complainant about 3/4 years back, the accused persons have shunted her out of the house after giving beatings and since then she has been staying in the parents’ house.
She has filed many complaints against the petitioner and his family members with Police Station Jharkhu but no action was taken.
Counsel for the petitioner has taken the protection of Section 468 Cr.P.C.laying down a bar for taking cognizance after the lapse of the period of limitation.
It is claimed by him that the sentence of 3 years is prescribed for the offence under Sections 406, 498 A IPC as such the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the offence in the present case would be 3 years from the date of commission of offence.
It has been claimed that the complainant has admitted that the event of cruelty is 3 years old.
He has placed reliance on the judgment in Smt.
Hukmi Devi and ORS.versus State of Haryana and another, 1992 (1) Recent Criminal Reports 357, Veena Kapoor and another versus State of NCT of Delhi, 2008 (1) HLR48and Gupta Sanjay 2014.05.07 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-998 of 2014 [3].Sudhir Kapur and others versus State and another, Crl.
M.C.No.799 of 2009, decided on August 10, 2010.
The last two judgments are of Delhi High Court wherein in context to provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., it has been held that cognizance of an offence where maximum sentence of imprisonment is 3 yeaRs.can be taken within 3 yeaRs.I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the judgments cited by him.
In none of the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner, a reference has been made to provisions of Section 472 Cr.P.C.providing that in cases of continuing offence a fresh period of limitation shall begin to run at every moment of the time during which the offence continuous.
Section 473 Cr.P.C.provides extension of period of limitation in certain cases giving power to Courts to take cognizance of an offence after expiry of period of limitation if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained.
In the present case, the complainant alongwith her minor child is being compelled to stay away from matrimonial home despite her legal right under Section 17 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
She has also mentioned in the FIR that she had filed a number of complaints which were not looked into.
In view of the said allegations, it will be required of the Court taking cognizance to determine whether the circumstances warrant exercise of power under Section 473 Cr.P.C.It will be premature to give an opinion regarding the bar of limitation for taking Gupta Sanjay 2014.05.07 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh CRM M-998 of 2014 [4].cognizance by the Court.
In view of the serious allegations of demand of dowry and continuing cruelty, no ground is made out for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner.
Dismissed.
Interim order earlier passed is hereby vacated.
Anything said in this order will not prejudice the rights of the petitioner to raise all the pleas of limitation at the time of framing of charges.
May 5, 2014 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE Gupta Sanjay 2014.05.07 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh