Krishan Lal Vs. Devinder Kumari - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- sections 80 (2) & 89 & punjab motor vehicles rules, 1989, rules 85 & 80: [t.s. thakur, cj, jasbir singh & surya kant, jj] appeal against orders of state or regional transport authority imitation held, a stipulation regarding the period of limitation available for invoking the remedy shall have to be strictly construed. that is because any provision by way of limitation is in the nature of a restraint on the remedy provided under the act. so viewed two inferences are clear viz., (1) sections 80 and 89 of the act read with rule 85 of the rules make it obligatory for the authorities making the order to communicate it to the applicant concerned and (2) the period of limitation for any appeal against the order is reckonable from the date of such communication of the reasons would imply communication of a copy of the written order itself, a party who knows about the making of an order cannot ignore the same and allow grass to grow under its feet and do nothing except waiting for a formal communication of the order or to choose a tenuous plea that even though he knew about the order, he was waiting for its formal communication to seek redress against the same in appeal. if a party does not know about the making of the order either actually or constructively it may claim that the period of limitation would start running from the date it acquires knowledge of the making of an order but one cannot understand how a party, who has acquired knowledge of the making an order either directly or constructively can ignore the same and belatedly seek redress just because the authority making the order had made a default in formally communicating the order to him. allowing a party to do so would amount to placing a premium on the lack of diligence of a party, who is remiss in seeking a remedy that was available to it. therefore, knowledge whether actual or construction of the order passed by the state or regional transport authority should result in commencement of the period of limitation. thus,. in cases where the state or regional transport authority has not communicated the order of refusal passed to the persons concerned, the period of limitation for filing an appeal would commence from the date when the parties concerned acquire knowledge of passing of the said order. - 527 where also the dragging in of other relations of the husband was disliked.j.b. garg, j.1. krishan lal the husband and seven other members of the family have moved this petition under section 482 of the criminal procedure code and have challenged a complaint instituted by devinder kumari the wife of krishan lal for offences under sections 406 and 498a of the i.p.o. pending in the court of shri s.p. singh, sub divisional judicial magistrate, kaithal.2. in this case the marrage was admittedly performed on 14.4.1984 at village pabnawa, tehsil kaithal, district kurukshetra. it has been alleged that the husband alone gave heatings to the complainant and that too in october, 1985. the husband is a driver. the learned counsel for the petitioners has a pointed out that it was not a case where dowry was demanded or that it has been concealed. on the contrary it has been pointed out that whatever articles of so-called dowry were left by the wife at the premises of her husband have been returned to her in proceedings conducted through the police of 29.10.1988 and a certified copy in this regard has also been placed on record. the learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to inderjit singh and others v. smt. sushma rani, 1988 (1) recent c.r. 527 where also the dragging in of other relations of the husband was disliked. during the course of arguments it has also transpired that maintenance pendente lite has been fixed for the wife and a petition for divorce is also pending.3. after perusal of the petition and hearing it is held that it is a case of the abuse of the process of the court in launching prosecution against krishan lal the husband and his parents shankar dass and lajwanti and three other brothers ramesh, pappu and gulshan etc. the conclusion is that the petition is accepted and the proceedings arising out of the complaint pending in the court of sub divisional magistrate, kaithal are hereby quashed.