Quashed

C N Sameer v. Station House Officer City Traffic Police Station

Kerala HC2 Feb 2021Crl.MC/3106/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal miscellaneous petition, the High Court quashed proceedings against the petitioner for driving dangerously (IPC 279/337). The petitioner argued the private complaint filed over a year later was barred by limitation. The High Court accepted the magistrate's report admitting the lapse, held the cognizance illegal, and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Miscellaneous case was allowed and further proceedings in CC No. 1267/2016 were quashed.

C N Sameer Vs Station House Officer City… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 02ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 13TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CC 1267/2016 OF JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURT, TRIPUNITHURA

¶7

PETITIONER/S:

¶8

C N SAMEER

¶9

AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.C.K.NATESAN,CHEMMATTUVELY HOUSE, NADAKAV P.O,UDAYAMPEROR 682 307.

¶10

BY ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATION HOUSE OFFICER CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION

¶13

CITY TRAFFIC POLICE STATION,TRIPUNITHURA.

¶14

2 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.

¶15

3 BINDU MUKUNDAN COMPLAINANT KOOTTUMMUKHATH HOUSE, NADAKKAV P.O,UDAYAMPEROOR - 682 307.

¶16

R1, R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOHN K.GEORGE

¶17

OTHER PRESENT:

¶18

SR. GP-SRI. CHANDRASENAN D.

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)

¶21

¶22

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J

¶23

---------------------------------Crl.M.C. No. 3106 of 2017

¶24

-------------------------------Dated this the 2^nd day of February, 2021

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioner is the accused in CC No.1267/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura. It is a private complaint filed by the 3^rd respondent against the petitioner alleging offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC. Annexure-A6 is the complaint. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC and issued summons to the petitioner. This petition under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the above proceedings pending before the lower court.

¶27

Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the 3^rd respondent. I also heard the Public Prosecutor.

¶28

The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the complaint is barred by limitation. The contention of the petitioner is that the offences alleged against the petitioner are under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC and the complaint ought to have been

¶29

Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)

¶30

¶31

filed within one year from the date of the alleged incident. Admittedly, in this case, the complaint was filed after one year. Therefore, it is barred by limitation and the learned Magistrate erred in taking cognizance of the offences. This is the sum and substance of the contentions.

¶32

The counsel for the 3^rd respondent submitted that the complainant explained the delay in the complaint and simply because the learned Magistrate has not considered the same in the order taking cognizance, it will be an injustice to the 3^rd respondent, if this Court interfere with the order on the ground of delay. The counsel also submitted that if this Court feel that the learned Magistrate committed an error, this matter can be send back to the lower court.

¶33

Admittedly, the alleged incident in this case happened on 8.9.2014. The complaint was filed only on 1.8.2016. The learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences punishable under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Sec. 279 of the IPC is 6 months or a fine of Rs. 1000 or with both. The maximum punishment that can be imposed under Sec. 337 of the IPC is 6 months or a fine of Rs.500/- or both. As per

¶34

Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)

¶35

¶36

Sec. 468(2)(b) of the Cr.P.C., there is a limitation period in taking cognizance of the offences in which maximum punishment is for a term not exceeding one year. Sec. 468 Cr.P.C. is extracted herein.

¶37

Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.

¶38

“(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.

¶39

(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 term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶40

(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.”

¶41

From the above provision, it is clear that the period of

¶42

limitation will be one year if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. Admittedly, in this case, the maximum punishment that can be imposed under Secs. 279 and 337 of the IPC are below one year.

¶43

When this case came up for consideration, this Court directed the Registry to obtain a report from the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Tripunithura regarding the delay aspect raised by the petitioner in this Crl.M.C. The learned Magistrate forwarded a report dated 18.2.2019. The relevant portion of the report is extracted herein.

¶44

Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)

¶45

¶46

“CMP No.357/16 was filed by complainant Bindu Mukundan on 01.08.2016. Her sworn statement was recorded on 01.08.2016 itself. The statements on oath of the other witnesses were recorded on 27.08.2016 and 03.09.2016. The complainant was heard and as prima facie case was found against the accused, cognizance was taken against him of offences u/s. 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The offence alleged had happened on 08.09.2014.

¶47

I regret that I had inadvertently overlooked the delay involved in the case. In consequence of the same I had not passed an order condoning the delay and had mistakenly taken cognizance of the offence against the accused. I had acted in all bonafides and I deeply regret the inconvenience caused in this regard. I assure Your Lordship that, I shall act with due care in future. ”

¶48

8. Admittedly, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of

¶49

the offence without condoning the delay. The learned Magistrate

¶50

conceded that she committed a mistake. Admittedly, the complaint is filed after the limitation period. In such circumstances, taking cognizance of the offences is per se, illegal. Therefore, the proceedings against the petitioner will not stand.

¶51

Hence, this Criminal Miscellaneous case is allowed. All further proceedings against the petitioner in CC No. 1267/2016 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Tripunithura will stand quashed.

¶52

Sd/-

¶53

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

¶54

JUDGE

¶55

SKS

¶56

Crl.MC.No.3106 OF 2017(G)

¶57

¶58

APPENDIX

¶59

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶60

TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE COPY APPLICATION ANNEXURE-A1 DATED 18.04.2017

C N Sameer v. Station House Officer City Traffic Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C N Sameer v. Station House Officer City Traffic Police Station

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

Noushad K. Vs State of Kerala

Xxx Vs State of Kerala

Krishnaprasad @ Prasad Vs State of Kerala

Mukesh a. Vs State of Kerala

Shobha v S Vs State of Kerala

Muhammad Ali Vs State of Kerala