Bawa Harbans Singh vs Versha Rani etc.

Dalveer Bhandari, J.

(1) The petitioner has filed revision petition against the order dated 24.10.91, passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi. The complaint has been dismissed on the ground of delay of more than one year in filing the complaint under Sections 340 and 448 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2) Admittedly, the alleged incident had taken place on 6th/ 7/08/1986.The complaint was filed on 31/01/1989. The maximum sentence which can be awarded for an offence u/s 340, provided in Section 341,Indian Penal Code is one month and a fine of Rs. 500.00or both, and for an offence u/s 448,1.P.C.is one year or fine of Rs. 1000.00 or both. The complainant has also moved an application for condensation of delay.

(3) The learned Metropolitan Magistrate has mentioned in the order that the accused had filed complaints earlier also which were dismissed in default. The date of incident is 6/07/1986,. and complaint was filed on 3/01/1989.

(4) I have gone through the averments of the complaint. According to the provisions of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is a clear bar of taking cognizance of complaint filed after a lapse of one year. The Section 468 is reproduced as under:-

"468.Bar to taking cognisance after lapse of the period of limitation-(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall658 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.(3) For the purposes of this Section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment."

(5) I have heard the petitioner in person and Ms. Neelam Grover .for the respondents ,and have perused the averments mentioned in the complaint. Looking to the averments mentioned in the complaint, in the interest of justice, I do not consider it appropriate to condone the unduly long delay in filing the complaint.

(6) Under these circumstances, the complaint filed by the petitioner has be enrightly dismissed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. The revision petition is accordingly, dismissed.