Manohar Lal vs Bodh Raj

R.P. Nagrath, J.—This petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the impugned order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, whereby the complaint bearing No. 62 dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P-2) filed by the petitioner was dismissed and the order dated 17.1.2013 (Annexure P-4) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Amabala, dismissing the revision. The petitioner filed a criminal complainant against respondent-Bodh Raj and two others, namely, Chiman Lal and Lal Chand for having misappropriated 1 Kg. of gold and other articles. The facts emerging from the complaint (Annexure P-2) are that there was a family dispute between the petitioner and his real brothers, namely, Lal Chand and Bodh Raj (respondent herein) regarding partition of the movable and immovable properties left by their father. Three arbitrators, namely, Chiman Lal, Ram Chand and Bhajan Lal, were appointed and the above articles were entrusted to Chiman Lal on 2.3.1992. Chiman Lal is said to have misappropriated the goods in connivance with Lal Chand and Bodh Raj-respondent. The complainant-petitioner also moved an application before the Superintendent of Police, Jind on 28.12.1998, alleging misappropriation of the articles by these persons.

The petitioner also approached this Court, by way of petition u/s 482 Cr. P.C. bearing CRM-M-95-1999, for a direction to register FIR against Chiman Lal for misappropriating the entrusted articles, which was disposed on 27.4.2000 with the observation that since the matter has already been investigated by the police and if the petitioner was not satisfied with the report u/s 107/151 Cr. P.C., it is always open to him to file a criminal complaint in the Court of competent jurisdiction. It was thereafter, the complaint dated 6.6.2000 (Annexure P-2) was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, for offences under Sections 406/420 IPC. The summoning order dated 18.7.2002 was passed against the respondent and other two persons u/s 406 IPC.

An application u/s 468 Cr. P.C., was filed by the accused before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambala, which was allowed vide order dated 7.7.2009 (Annexure P-3). Revision petition against the said order was also dismissed on 17.1.2013, by the Sessions Judge, Ambala. The learned Sessions Judge, observed as under:-

In the present case, the articles in question were entrusted to the accused on 02.03.1992 for partition of the Joint Hindu Family properties between the complainant and his brothers and mother which were alleged to have been then misappropriated by the accused and the period of limitation was liable to be computed from the year 1992 and the present complaint having been filed on 06.06.2000 after expiry of more than three years since then is clearly time barred. Since the complaint was time barred, the accused have rightly been discharged u/s 245(2) of the Cr. P.C.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the bar of limitation u/s 468 Cr. P.C. is a mixed question of law and facts and the complaint cannot be thrown away at the threshold. It is also contended that the offence of misappropriation is a continuing offence for which the bar of limitation is not attracted.

It is the case of petitioner that the other two co-accused, namely Lal Chand and Chiman Lal, have since died and this petition has, thus, been filed only against Bodh Raj, who was impleaded as accused No. 3 in the complaint. The allegation in the complaint was that goods were entrusted to Chiman Lal (since deceased). Even the prayer made in CRM-M-95-1999, was to register FIR against Chiman Lal (since deceased) for having misappropriated the articles. So on this score alone the instant petition filed against Bodh Raj deserves to be dismissed.

Coming to the other contention it would be appropriate to refer to 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;

(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.

There is no allegation in the petition to show, how, this offence so far as respondent-Bodh Raj is concerned can be continuing offence. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon V.K. Agarwal, Assistant Collector of Customs Vs. Vasantraj Bhagwanji Bhatia and Others, , which is not applicable to the case in hand. That was a case relating to an offence punishable u/s 111 read with Section 135 of Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of Gold (Control) Act, 1968. The Hon''ble Supreme Court found that 20 years having elapsed since the date of seizure of gold u/s 111 read with Section 135 of the Customs Act is no ground for not proceeding further with the matter inasmuch as the offence in question is a serious economic offence, which undermines the entire economy of the nation. The present case is a purely a dispute with regard to the partition of the joint property.

There is, thus, no scope of interference in the conclusions reached by the Courts below. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to partition of the joint property, the remedy is always available to have recourse to civil proceedings. With the above observations, the instant petition is dismissed in limine.