Partly allowed

The Editior, v. Bodi Malleswari

Telangana HC16 Feb 2012CRLP/10930/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash proceedings based on a private complaint alleging defamation under Section 500 I.P.C. The Court set aside the proceedings because the Presiding Magistrate condoned the delay in filing the complaint without a formal application under Section 473 Cr.P.C despite lack of prior explanation. Liberty was granted to file a fresh compla

What did the court decide?

Impugned proceedings were set aside; liberty granted to complainant to file a fresh complaint accompanied by an application under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

The Editior, Vs Bodi Malleswari — Cheating and Forgery | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU

¶2

CRIMINAL PETITION No.10930 of 2010

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C’) to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner/accused in C.C.No.438 of 2008 on the file of V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur.

¶5

The first respondent herein filed a private complaint against the petitioner/accused in 2008 for the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C on the file of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Guntur. According to the said complaint, a defamatory statement was published in Vartha Telugu News Daily of Guntur Edition on 22.09.2004 stating that “the complainant is mentally disordered woman”. The learned Magistrate condoned the delay and took cognizance of the offence.

¶6

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the first respondent and the learned Public Prosecutor.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that before condoning the delay in filing the complaint, the learned Magistrate has not afforded any opportunity to the petitioner and therefore, he prays to quash the impugned proceedings.

¶8

The offence under Section 500 I.P.C is punishable with imprisonment for two years or with fine or with both.

¶9

Section 468 Cr.P.C enjoins that no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the categories specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation mentioned therein. Section 468 Cr.P.C reads as under:

¶10

"468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation - (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this

¶11

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.

¶12

(2) The period of limitation shall be -

¶13

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

¶14

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶15

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶16

(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."

¶17

Therefore, for the offence punishable under Section 500 I.P.C, the limitation is three years from the date of the offence. However, even after the expiry of the period of limitation, the Court may take cognizance of an offence under Section 473 Cr.P.C, if it is satisfied that the delay has been properly explained. For that purpose, the complainant has to file an application along with the complaint to condone the delay giving explanation for such delay. After the lapse of limitation, a valuable right accrues to the accused and therefore, before condoning the delay, a notice of taking cognizance shall be given to the accused.

¶18

Admittedly, in the instant case, no application to condone the delay as contemplated under Section 473 Cr.P.C is filed by the complainant. But, however, the learned Magistrate has condoned the delay based on the medical certificate filed by the complainant along with the complaint. Therefore, I am of the view that the impugned proceedings are liable to be set aside.

¶19

Accordingly, the impugned proceedings are set aside. However, liberty is given to the complainant to file a fresh complaint along with a petition to condone the delay as contemplated under

¶20

Section 473 Cr.P.C, by giving reasons.

¶21

In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶22

______________ K.C.BHANU,J

¶23

Dated: 16.02.2012 va

The Editior, v. Bodi Malleswari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Editior, v. Bodi Malleswari

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

Marri Gunavathi, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M.Veeraiah, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Thota Adinarayana Reddy Vs The State of Ap.

Chandana Ramadevi, Vs The State of A.P.

Tadiboina Firoz Babu, Vs Tadiboina Vijaya Kumari

Lakkaraju Satyanaranayana Murthy , Lsn Murthy Vs The State of Ap.