# Charanjeet Singh & Ors v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13219 of 2018
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-02-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13219 of 2018
- **Bench:** Rajiv Joshi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/charanjeet-singh-ors-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46198
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 468(2)(b) - Cognizance
of offence - Bar to taking cognizance after
lapse of the period of limitation - Offence
u/S.
323
IPC

punishable
with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year - Limitation period applicable for
taking cognizance is one year in view of
468(2)(b) - Protest petition which was
treated as complaint filed after expiry of
about
10
years
from
the
date
of
submission of final report - no explanation
furnished
by
complainant
for
delay-
summoning order quashed (Para 15 16)

Application allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :
St. of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604

## Text

1688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Police Station-Obra, District-Sonbhadra,
are quashed. However, it shall be open for
the complainant/opposite party no.2 to file
a fresh complaint against the applicant in
accordance with law.

27. The present application is,
accordingly, allowed. There shall be no
order as to costs.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1688
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJIV JOSHI, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13219 of 2018

Charanjeet Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Nipun Singh, Sri Abhishek Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A., Sri Rajeev Kumar, Sri Rajnikant
Pandey

Criminal Law-Criminal Procedure Code (2
of 1974) - Section 468(2)(b) - Cognizance
of offence - Bar to taking cognizance after
lapse of the period of limitation - Offence
u/S.
323
IPC

punishable
with
imprisonment for a term not exceeding
one year - Limitation period applicable for
taking cognizance is one year in view of
468(2)(b) - Protest petition which was
treated as complaint filed after expiry of
about
10
years
from
the
date
of
submission of final report - no explanation
furnished
by
complainant
for
delay-
summoning order quashed (Para 15 16)

Application allowed (E-5)

List of cases cited :
St. of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Nipun Singh, learned
counsel for the applicants , learned AGA
for the State and Sri Rajeev Kumar, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2.

2. Present application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
summoning order dated 20.2.2018 and
bailable warrant dated 21.3.2018 issued by
the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast
Track Court, Gautam Budh Nagar as well
as the entire proceedings of Complaint
Case No. 2946 of 2017 (Rajendra Kumar
Vs. Charanjeet Singh and others), under
Section 323 of IPC, P.S. Sector-58, Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar.

3. Brief facts for consideration of
present application are that applicant-1 is a
Managing
Director
of
a
Company
incorporated under the Companies Act,
1956 formerly known as GSC Tafan Glass
Pvt. Ltd. now known as GSC Glass Ltd.,
having its head office at 5 and 7, Udyog
Vihar, Greater Noida, District Gautam
Budh Nagar, while the applicant-2 and 3
are the ex-manager and ex-supervisor
respectively of the said company and have
retired long ago. The informant-opposite
party no.2 was working as a helper in
cutting department of the company.

4. In respect of an incident, which is
alleged to have occurred on 17.6.2001 at
8.30 AM, an application under Section 156
(3) Cr.P.C. was filed on 23.6.2001for
lodging/registering the first information
report under Section 323, 326 and 506 IPC
and first information report was lodged
against the applicants on 17.7.2001 at case
crime no. 179 of 2001, under Sections 323,
3-5 All. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1689
326 and 506 IPC, P.S. Sector-58, Noida,
District Gautam Budh Nagar.

5. After registration of the first
information report, police of the concerned
police station investigated the matter in
terms of Chapter XII of Cr.P.C. and
submitted a final report dated 10.10.2001.
Against this final report, the opposite party
no.2-informant filed a protest petition dated
11.4.2011 i.e. after about 10 years. Upon
filing of the aforesaid protest petition, the
Court below passed an order dated
23.9.2011 directing the Station House
Officer of the police station Sector 58,
Noida to conduct further investigation in
the matter and conclude the same at the
earliest. After the passing of the aforesaid
order dated 23.9.2011, the opposite party
no.2 filed criminal misc. writ petition no.
20290 of 2014 (Rajendra Singh Vs. State of
U.P. and others), which was disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 7.11.2014. The
order dated 7.11.2014 is reproduced herein
below:

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned A.G.A.

This petition has been filed by the
petitioner with a prayer that suitable
direction may be issued to the authority
concerned for ensuring fair investigation of
case crime no. 179 of 2001, u/s 323, 326,
506 IPC P.S. Sector 58 Noida District
Gautam Budh Nagar.

From the perusal of the record it
reveals that the petitioner is the first
informant of the above mentioned case. In
case the petitioner is having any grievance
with regard to the investigation of the
abovementioned case, the same may be
raised before the SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar
who shall look into the matter so that fair
and expeditious further investigation of the
abovementioned case may be ensured.

With the above direction this
petition is finally disposed of."

6. After the order passed by this Court
in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 20290
of 2014, the matter was investigated by the
Investigating Officer under the direct
supervision of Senior Superintendent of
Police, Gautam Budh Nagar and again a
final report dated 19.9.2014 was submitted
by the Investigating Officer. Aggrieved by
the said final report, the opposite party no.2
filed a protest petition on 6.7.2015. The
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh
Nagar vide its order dated 28.7.2015 did
not accept the final report and treated the
protest petition filed by opposite party no. 2
as a complaint case and fixed 7.9.2015 for
recording of the statement of opposite party
no.2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

7.

Subsequently,
statement
of
opposite
party
no.2,
the
informant/complainant was recorded on
29.1.2016.
The
statements
of
earlier
witnesses of the informant namely, Salek
and Ranveer alias Rani and new witnesses
namely, Leele, Munish Chand and Dr. S.P.
Jain (Retired) were recorded. Copy of these
statements recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C. have been appended collectively as
annexure-14 to the affidavit while the
statement under section 200,Cr.P.C. is
annexure-13.

8. From bare perusal of the statement
of Dr. S.P. Jain (Retired) , E.N.T. Surgeon,
it is clear that the alleged injury of the
informant could be possible while cleaning
the ear and the said injury would have no
impact on his hearing capacity and would
heal at its own.

9. Ultimately, the Civil Judge (Senior
Division)/Fast Track Court, Gautam Budh
1690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Nagar has summoned the applicants vide
order dated 20.2.2018 for the offence under
Section 323 IPC.

10. The order dated 20.02.2018
summoning the applicants as well as the
order dated 21.3.2018 issuing the bailable
warrant against them and the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2946
of 2017 are impugned in the present
application.

11. Contention of learned counsel for
the applicants is that present criminal
proceedings are wholly malicious and
amounts to abuse of the process of law, in
as much as, no explanation has been
furnished by the complainant with regard to
the delay of about 10 years in filing the
protest petition from the date of submission
of final report i.e. 10.10.2001. It is further
contended by learned counsel for the
applicants that the court below while
passing the impugned summoning order
dated 20.2.2018 has not considered this
aspect of the matter. He next submitted that
the period for taking cognizance as
prescribed under section 468,Cr.P.C. for an
offence under Section 323 IPC has expired
long back.

12. On the other hand, learned AGA
as well as learned counsel for the opposite
party no. 2 supported the impugned
summoning order and submitted that
applicants have rightly been summoned and
after considering the statements made by
the informant-opposite party no. 2 under
Section 200 Cr.P.C as well as his witnesses
under Section 202 Cr.P.C, the summoning
order has rightly been passed and prima
facie, a case for an offence under Section
323 is made out.

13. I have considered the rival
submission so raised by learned counsel for
the parties and perused the record.

14. The complainant in support of his
case produced one witness amongst the
factory workers namely, Leele Singh, who
happens to be the real brother of opposite
party no.2 and even his statement was
recorded after a lapse of more than 15 years
from the date of incident. In his statement,
Leele Singh stated that he saw the opposite
party no.2 when he was injured, but his
blatant lie is proved beyond doubt as when
his
real
brother
(complainant)
was
allegedly
injured,
he
even
did
not
accompany him to the hospital and went to
the factory to attend his routine duty. There
is no explanation for the delay of about 10
years in filing the protest petition after the
final report was submitted on 10.10.2001.

15. Section 468 Cr.P.C. creates a bar
for taking cognizance after the lapse of
period of limitation. The provisions of
Section 468 Cr.P.C. read as under:

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

(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.

(2) The period of limitation shall
be-

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

[Provisions of this Chapter shall
not apply to certain economic offences, see
the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of
Limitation) Act, 1974 (12 of 1974 ), s. 2
end Sch. ]
3-5 All. Charanjeet Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1691

(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."

16. From a bare reading of the
aforesaid Section, it is manifestly clear that
there is a legislative bar in taking
cognizance of offences of the category
specified in subsection (2) after the expiry
of the period of limitation. The offence
under section 323 IPC being punishable
with
imprisonment
for
a
term
not
exceeding one year, it is covered by section
468 (2) (b),Cr.P.C., for which the period of
limitation prescribed is one year. Thus, in
this case the period of limitation for taking
cognizance was one year. The protest
petition which was subsequently treated as
a complaint was filed after expiry of about
10 years, even otherwise from bare perusal
of entire facts and circumstances, it is
apparent that the entire prosecution against
the applicants is malicious and amounts to
abuse of the process of law.

17. The Apex Court in State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC
604,
after
considering
the
previous
decisions of the Apex Court and the
provisions
of
the
Code,
culled
out
categories of cases, wherein at a threshold
stage, criminal prosecution could be
quashed either in exercise of powers under
Article 226 of the Constitution or under
Section 482 Cr.P.C, as the case may be,
with a view to either prevent abuse the
process of the Court or otherwise to secure
the ends of justice, making it clear that it
may not be possible to compartmentalize
each and every such contingencies, but
nevertheless following categories were
mentioned:

(1) Where the allegations made in
the
first
information
report
or
the
complaint, even if they are taken at their
face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or
make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the
first
information
report
and
other
materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do
not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under an
order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted
allegations made in the FIR or complaint
and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the
accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the
FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable
offence, no investigation is permitted by a
police officer without an order of a
Magistrate as contemplated under Section
155(2) of the Code.

(5) Where the allegations made in
the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of
which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient
ground for proceeding against the accused.

(6) Where there is an express
legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions
of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted)
to the institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned
Act,
providing
efficacious
1692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
redress for the grievance of the aggrieved
party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with mala fide
and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and
with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.

18. On the basis of allegation made in
the first information report as well as from
the summoning order, this Court is of the
view that present prosecution is malicious
and amounts to abuse of process of law and
is also barred by limitation as prescribed
under Section 468 (2)(b) and the case is
squarely covered by the illustration (7)
made in the case of Bhajan Lal (supra).

19. In view of what has been stated
above.
the
summoning
order
dated
20.2.2018 and bailable warrant dated
21.3.2018 passed by the Civil Judge
(Senior
Division)/Fast
Track
Court,
Gautam Budh Nagar as well as the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case No. 2946
of 2017 (Rajendra Kumar Vs. Charanjeet
Singh and others), under Section 323 of
IPC are unsustainable in the eyes of law
and are accordingly quashed.

20. In the result, the application
stands allowed.
----------
(2020)03-05ILR A1692
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.

Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. No. 13819 of 2019

Sanjeev Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Gupta (In Person)

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A., Sri Nitin Gupta

A.
Criminal
law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - offence
effecting the administration of justice -
Scope - legislative intent that offence
committed should be of such nature which
directly effects the administration of
justice, viz., offence is committed after
document is produced or given in evidence
in court - provisions u/s 340 of CrPC come
into
play
while
offence
has
been
commissioned
subsequent
to
the
document produced in court (Para 19, 22)

B.
Criminal
Law-Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 340 - offence
effecting the administration of justice -
Expression - 'any Court is of opinion that it
is expedient in the interests of justice' -
Meaning of - Held - denotes that Court, in
case, is of the opinion that enquiry should
be conducted in the interest of justice
then he will conduct a preliminary enquiry
and record a finding to that effect and
make
in
writing
complaint
to
the
Magistrate Ist Class having competent
jurisdiction (Para 20)

Application filed u/s 340 Cr.P.C before trial
alleging PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 falsely deposed
before the trial court - Applicant pointed out
that there was contradiction in the statements
made by them - Trial court rejected application -
Appellate Court observed that correctness of
statements of witness on oath are subject
matter of judicial examination and the accused
has no right to allege it to be false - Held -
Fact, as deposed by respondents no. 2 to 4, as
to whether the applicant had been taken by
respondents no. 2 to 4 or not to the police
station, is not going to effect the administration
of justice and conviction of the applicant is not