IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No.32347 of 2014
Date of decision: 11th September, 2019
Naresh Mehta others
… Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab another
… Respondents
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Harbir Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
for respondent No.1/State.
Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2.
FATEH DEEP SINGH, J.
The private respondent No.2 Ritika filed against the
petitioners Naresh Mehta (father-in-law), Sunita Mehta (mother-in-law)
and Amit Mehta (husband) and others a criminal complaint under
Sections 406/Section498A IPC. The allegations in brief are that the marriage
between the complainant and Amit Mehta took place on 11.12.1999
wherein sufficient dowry articles were given to the accused, however, the
accused husband and the in-laws of the complainant were not happy with
the same and raised a demand of more including a car. It is thereafter, the
allegations have come about as to demand of cash etc. leading to
matrimonial dispute. The wife as a consequence of this, filed on
04.12.2002 a criminal complaint (Annexure P1) in which the accused
1 of 5
02-10-2019 06:12:02 :::
CRM-M No.32347 of 2014 2
were summoned vide orders dated 13.09.2003 (Annexure P2). However,
during the course of the same, on account of non-prosecution of the
criminal complaint vide orders dated 20.09.2007 (Annexure P3) the
complaint was dismissed in default. On the same very allegations, a
second complaint (Annexure P4) was instituted by the wife on
30.01.2013 and vide orders dated 04.01.2014 (Annexure P5) the
petitioners accused were summoned under Sections 406/Section498-A IPC
against which they have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section
482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of this complain (Annexure P4) and the
summoning order (Annexure P5).
Upon hearing Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the
petitioners; Mr. Harbir Sandhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab
representing respondent No.1/State; Mr. Veneet Sharma, Advocate on
behalf of respondent No.2 and perusing the records of the case.
It is writ large on the records and could not be displaced by
any of the sides that the marriage took place between the couple on
11.12.1999 and the first complaint (Annexure P1) was instituted on
04.12.2002 and which stood dismissed in default on 20.09.2007
(Annexure P3) and thereafter, second complaint (Annexure P4) was
instituted on 30.01.2013 i.e. after a period of a little less than five-and-a-
half years of the order of dismissal of the first complaint. As is there,
2 of 5
02-10-2019 06:12:03 :::
CRM-M No.32347 of 2014 3
there is no mention or reasons how it was necessitated for institution of
second complaint or the fate of the first complaint besides the fact that
under both the offences punishable under Sections 406/Section498A IPC
maximum sentence prescribed is three years. Under Section 468 Sub
Section (2) Clause (c) SectionCr.P.C., the period of limitation is three years if the
offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
but not exceeding three years. Thus, in the light of the bar of Section
468(1) Cr.P.C., no Court shall take cognizance of an offence detailed in
Sub Section (2) after expiry of period of limitation. Even assuming, as is
there in the first complaint (Annexure P1), the cause of action has
accrued to the complainant as detailed by her in the complaint on
03.03.2001 and thus, the summoning order in the second complaint had
been issued on 04.01.2014 when the Court has taken cognizance of the
offence and therefore, by that analogy it is after almost thirteen years the
same has come about and is hopelessly barred by limitation. Even
otherwise, taking computation of period of limitation from the date of
filing of the complaint, in the light of ratio laid down by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court in ‘SectionJapani Sahoo vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty’ AIR
(2007) SC 2762 dehors cognizance of the complaint being hopelessly
barred by limitation.
3 of 5
02-10-2019 06:12:03 :::
CRM-M No.32347 of 2014 4
No doubt, upon dismissal of the first complaint, the
complainant has a right to either file a fresh complaint, a revision or a
petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for which reliance is sought to be
placed on ‘SectionJatinder Singh vs. Ranjit Kaur’ 2001 Cri.L.J. 1015, and
since the complainant has availed off remedy of filing fresh complaint,
but cannot escape rigor of limitation. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has sought support from ‘SectionM. Saravana Porselvi vs. A.R.
Chandershekhar @ Parthiban others’ 2008(3) RCR(Criminal)
454; ‘Smt. SectionHukami Devi others vs. The State of Haryana and
another’ 1992(1) RCR(Criminal) 357; ‘SectionAshok Bajaj vs. State of
Haryana’ 2003(1) CLJ (Criminal) 194; ‘SectionOm Parkash Bhatia vs. State
of Punjab’ 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 595; ‘SectionArun Jha another vs.
State of Haryana another’ 2006(1) RCR(Criminal) 300 to enliven
his arguments and which could not be challenged by learned counsel for
the respondents.
In the light of what has been detailed and discussed above,
initiation of proceedings after such a yawning gap which is more than
nineteen years of the marriage, renders the allegations stale and
unbecoming of a trial. What one can assume is that it is nothing but a
misuse of the process of the Court and would not subserve any purpose in
dispensation of justice. It is a fit case for this Court to exercise its
4 of 5
02-10-2019 06:12:03 :::
CRM-M No.32347 of 2014 5
inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to prevent further
prejudice and harassment to the petitioners. In the light of the same,
proceedings by way of criminal complaint No.347/13 dated 30.01.2013
(Annexure P4) as well as the summoning order dated 04.01.2014
(Annexure P5) including the consequences arising therefrom are hereby
quashed. The instant petition stands disposed off in those terms.
(FATEH DEEP SINGH)
JUDGE
September 11, 2019
rps
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
02-10-2019 06:12:03 :::