Dismissed

Mohammad Naim Khan v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2024/6037/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The hive court dismissed the applicant's application under Section 482 CrPC quashing an impugned order. The judgment held that despite the delay in filing the complaint relative to Section 506 IPC, limitation was not a bar because the applicant was jointly tried for the more severe offense under Section 395 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 482 CrPC dismissed; quashing of order denied.

Mohammad Naim Khan Vs the State of U.P and Anr. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:15095

¶2

Court No. - 27

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6037 of 2013 Applicant :- Mohammad Naim Khan Opposite Party :- The State Of U.P And Anr. Counsel for Applicant :- Murli Manohar Srivastava,S.K Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate,Ashutosh Nigam

¶4

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Mohd. Ali Shah Farooqui, Advocate holding brief of Sri Murli Manohar Srivastava, the learned counsel for the applicant and Smt. Parul Kant, the learned A.G.A for the State.

¶6

By means of the instant application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C, the applicant has sought quashing of the order dated 14.02.2022 passed by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate (customs), Lucknow in Complaint Case No. 2033/2008, taking cognizance of the offence and summons the applicants to face the trial for offence under Sections 456, 504, 506, 427 I.P.C.

¶7

The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that as per the compliant, the incident took place on 31.10.2005 whereas the complaint was lodged on 05.06.2008. He has submitted that the complaint was barred by limitation provided under Section 468 Cr.P.C.

¶8

Section 468 Cr.P.C of the Limitation Act provides as follows:- (a)Six months for offences punishable with fine only. (b) One year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and (c)three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶9

The complaint was filed alleging commission of offences under Sections 395, 427, 456, 504, 506 I.P.C, which carry a maximum

¶10

sentence of imprisonment upto 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine under Section 395 I.P.C; maximum sentence of imprisonment upto two years under Section 427 I.P.C, maximum sentence of imprisonment upto three years with fine under Section 456 I.P.C; maximum sentence of imprisonment upto two years under Section 504 I.P.C and maximum sentence of imprisonment upto two years under Section 506 I.P.C.

¶11

As the offence alleged in the complaint carry a maximum sentence of punishment of imprisonment upto 10 years, the bar of limitation would not apply as there is no bar of limitation for offences carrying punishment exceeding imprisonment for three years and Section 468 (3) Cr.P.C provides that:- 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.

¶12

Moreover, the applicant has been summoned for offences under Sections 456, 504, 506 I.P.C. The offence under section 456 I.P.C carries a maximum punishment of imprisonment for three years and the complaint has been filed for which the period of limitation prescribed is three years and the complaint has been filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Therefore, I find no merits in the contention of the applicant that the compliant has been filed beyond the period of limitation.

¶13

Accordingly, the application lacks merits and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶14

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶15

Order Date :- 20.2.2024 Preeti.

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mohammad Naim Khan v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Naim Khan v. the State of U.P and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shiv Ruchi Mishra Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Rajbir Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Home Govt. Lko. and Another

Anurag Mahajan and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Sey. Home Lko. and Another

Bhagwan Laxmi Narain Mandir Trust Situate at Mohalla- Vs State of U.P.and ORS.6

Juvenile v Accused of Crime No 125/2022, Thru. His Natural Guardian Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and 3 Others

Mohit Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others