Disposed

Pramodkumar D. Pramanik and Ors. v. the Regional Passport Officer and Anr.

Bombay HC19 Mar 2015APPLN/3701/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that a complaint for the offence under section 182 of the IPC filed over a decade after the cause of action accrued was beyond the one-year limitation period. Consequently, the process issued by the Magistrate was quashed, and thepending criminal case and bail bonds were cancelled.

What did the court decide?

The criminal case pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate was quashed, and the bail bonds of the applicants, if any, stood cancelled.

Pramodkumar D. Pramanik and Ors. Vs the… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

912-appln-3701.2006.sxw

¶2

.. 1 ..

¶3

hvn

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY . CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 3701 OF 2006

¶6

Pramodkumar D. Pramanik and Ors. … Applicants

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Regional Passport Officer and Ors. … Opponents

¶9

Mr. Rajendra Shirodkar along with Mr. Archit Sakhalkar, Mr. Ninav Ghag for the Applicants.

¶10

Mr. H.S. Venegaonkar, A.P.P. for respondent no. 1/CBI.

¶11

Smt. V.S. Mhaispurkar, A.P.P. for respondent no.2/State.

¶12

CORAM : M.L. TAHALIYANI, J. DATED : MARCH 19, 2015

¶13

P.C.

¶14

Heard Mr. Shirodkar learned counsel for the applicants and Mr.

¶15

Venegaonkar, learned A.P.P. for respondent no.1.

¶16

Respondent no.1 (Passport Officer) had filed complaint against

¶17

the applicants (Police Officers) for the offence punishable under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent no.1 was working as Regional Passport Officer, Worli, Mumbai. The allegation against the applicants was that they had furnished incorrect information to the public servant in as much

¶18

.. 2 .. 912-appln-3701.2006.sxw

¶19

as they had submitted a report to the Regional Passport Office that there was nothing wrong in the address of one Aminabi Kaskar. However, later on it was found that the address was not complete. The report given by the J.J. Marg Police Station to SB-II, C.I.D., Mumbai clearly indicated that the particulars furnished by Aminbi Kaskar was incomplete. Despite that SB-II officers, particularly applicants herein, issued verification report to the Regional Passport Officer, Mumbai that there was nothing wrong in the particulars and other details furnished by Aminbi Kaskar.

¶20

The issue raised before this court is with regard to the limitation within which the Magistrate could have taken cognizance of the offence. The Magistrate had issued process on 17^th September, 2003. Admittedly, the Regional Passport Office came to know about the alleged wrong information given by the applicants on 6^th June, 1995. As such the complaint was hopelessly beyond the period of limitation. The limitation period for filing the complaint for the offence punishable under section 182 of the Indian Penal Code is one year and the punishment for the said offence is six months. It is obvious that the learned Magistrate could not have issued process without there being an application for condonation of delay and without there being an order for condoning the delay. The process therefore, need to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following order :

¶21

912-appln-3701.2006.sxw

¶22

.. 3 ..

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Criminal Case pending against the applicants in the court of Metropolitan Magistrate, 19^th Court, Esplanade vide Case No. 302/S/2003 shall stand quashed. The bail bonds if any of the applicants shall stand cancelled.

¶25

(JUDGE)

Pramodkumar D. Pramanik and Ors. v. the Regional Passport Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramodkumar D. Pramanik and Ors. v. the Regional Passport Officer and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Shrihari Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra

Mrs. Carmel Peter Prabhu . Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors. .

Dr. Jayesh Arjun Katira Vs the State of Maharashtra

Artiskinky Motion Pictures Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Gangasagar Nimraj Dev Vs the State of Maharashtra

Rinke Samir Saran @ Rinke Jatin Khanna Vs Anita Advani and Anr.