Rohtash and ors. Vs. Babli - 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.orderm.m. aggarwal, j.1. this is a petition against judgment dated 22.2.2005 of sessions judge narnaul whereby the revision petition filed by complainant babli against order dated 30.1.2004 of judicial magistrate, 1st class, mohindergarh was accepted. vide this judgment, sessions judge, narnaul had directed that complaint shall also proceed against the present petitioners.2. the facts of the case are that babli-respondent filed a complaint for offence under sections 406/498-a/506/323/34/120-b, i.p.c. against her husband karan singh, rohtash and bhuri parents-in-law and sharmila husband's sister. judicial magistrate 1st class, mohindergarh after considering preliminary evidence had issued summons for offence under section 498-a, i.p.c. as against karan singh husband. from copy annexure p-4, it would come out that earlier to that, he had marked the inquiry to dsp, mohindergarh who has found that it was not a case of cruel treatment or dowry and it was just to pressurize the in-laws party.3. in matrimonial cases, an effort is always made by the prosecutrix/ complainant to rope in as many persons as possible. in this complaint case, an enquiry had been got conducted under section 202,cr.p.c. by the judicial magistrate, 1st class, mohindergarh from dsp, mohindergarh who had found that this complaint was just to pressurize the in-laws party.4. under these circumstances, i am of the view that judicial magistrate 1st class, mohindergarh had rightly decided not to proceed against the other persons, except the husband.5. as such, this petition is accepted. the impugned order 22.2.2005 of sessions judge, narnaul is set aside and that of the judicial magistrate, 1st class, mobindergarh is restored.

Judgment:
ORDER

M.M. Aggarwal, J.

1. This is a petition against judgment dated 22.2.2005 of Sessions Judge Narnaul whereby the revision petition filed by complainant Babli against order dated 30.1.2004 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mohindergarh was accepted. Vide this judgment, Sessions Judge, Narnaul had directed that complaint shall also proceed against the present petitioners.

2. The facts of the case are that Babli-respondent filed a complaint for offence under Sections 406/498-A/506/323/34/120-B, I.P.C. against her husband Karan Singh, Rohtash and Bhuri parents-in-law and Sharmila husband's sister. Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mohindergarh after considering preliminary evidence had issued summons for offence under Section 498-A, I.P.C. as against Karan Singh husband. From copy Annexure P-4, it would come out that earlier to that, he had marked the inquiry to DSP, Mohindergarh who has found that it was not a case of cruel treatment or dowry and it was just to pressurize the in-laws party.

3. In matrimonial cases, an effort is always made by the prosecutrix/ complainant to rope in as many persons as possible. In this complaint case, an enquiry had been got conducted under Section 202,Cr.P.C. by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mohindergarh from DSP, Mohindergarh who had found that this complaint was just to pressurize the in-laws party.

4. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Mohindergarh had rightly decided not to proceed against the other persons, except the husband.

5. As such, this petition is accepted. The impugned order 22.2.2005 of Sessions Judge, Narnaul is set aside and that of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Mobindergarh is restored.