# Lalit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1885
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 45327 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/lalit-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-50287
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Criminal law - Criminal Procedure
Code,
1973
-Section
482.-
Entire
proceedings under section 406 IPC under
challenge- Allegation- Applicant did not
execute sale deed- nor did he return
money-
Final
report
submitted
after
investigation-protest petition filed by the
opposite party no.2- allowed- further
investigation-again a final report was
submitted-
second
protest
petition-
treated as complaint applicant summoned
to face trial under Section 406 IPC.

B. Applicant moved application under
Section 468 Cr.P.C.- complaint regarding
the incident of 23.05.2011 registered on
23.06.2014-
cognizance
taken
on
11.03.2016- maximum punishment under
Section
406
IPC-3
years-cognizance
cannot be taken after three years of
lodging of complaint-both registration of
complaint and order of cognizance-time
barred.

C. Section 473 Cr.PC. - extension of period
of limitation in certain cases mentioned
therein- court has been empowered to
take cognizance of the offence after the
expiry of the period of limitation-if it is
satisfied
on
the
facts
and
the
circumstances of the case-delay has been
properly explained or that it is necessary
to do so in the interest of justice-in the
instant case FIR was lodged within timeopposite party no. 2 was continuously
busy in the proceedings of the said caseno laxity on his part- opp. party no. 2 is
entitled for benefit of extension of period
of limitation on the basis of section 473
Cr.P.C.- application dismissed.

HELD:
If we go through the provision under section
468 Cr.P.C., this section relates to the bar taking
cognizance after lapse of period of limitation.
Admittedly, the applicant has been summoned
to face trial for the offence under section 406
I.P.C. wherein the maximum sentence is 3 years
imprisonment or imprisonment with fine or both.
As per this section the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term up to 3 years and
the limitation period of taking cognizance in the
case is also 3 years. On the basis of this
provision only, the applicant makes a prayer that
the offence is of year 2011 complaint has been
registered on 23.6.2014 and cognizance has
been taken in the year 2016, so the complaint
and cognizance both are time barred.

If we go through the section 473 of Cr.P.C. it is
related to the extension of period of limitation in
certain cases mentioned therein. Vide this
section 473 Cr.P.C., the court has been
empowered to take cognizance of the offence
after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is
satisfied on the facts and the circumstances of
the case that delay has been properly explained
or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of
justice. Referring the Judgment of Bharat
Damodar Kale Anr. Vs St.of Andhra Pradesh
(2003) 8 SCC 559, learned counsel for the opp.
party no.2 submitted that in the present case
cognizance was taken on 11.3.2016 and the
revisional court confirmed the said order vide
order dated 15.7.2017. Section 473 Cr.P.C.
provides for the extension of period of
limitation, if the court is satisfied going through
the facts and circumstances of the case. In the
judgment of Bharat Damodar Kale (supra), the
Apex Court held that this limitation is only for
filing of a complaint and not for taking
cognizance. Regarding cause of action dated
23.5.2011, on the basis of an application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the FIR was lodged on
17.9.2011. Thus, it would be considered that the
process has been initiated within time, hence,
the proceedings cannot be said to be time
barred.

From the perusal of the record, it is found that
after lodging the FIR within time, the opp. party
no. 2 had to face two final reports and then to
file two protest petitions. His second protest
petition
was
registered
as
complaint
on
23.6.2014. He had also to adduce the evidence
under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in the
complaint and finally the court took cognizance
vide order dated 11.3.2016. This shows that the
opp. party no. 2 was continuously busy in the
proceedings of the said case. Ther

## Text

5 All. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1885
be a factor in those cases, where the
reinstatement with backwages has been
ordered, as there is no question of
reinstatement in the present case either
under the award or in the absence of
challenge by the workman to the award.

47. Even the Labour Court has
recorded clear finding just above the
operative portion of the impugned award
that the workman had stated that he had not
worked over a period of 15 years and that
he had made an oral request from the
employer to take him on duty, but did not
submit any application in this regard.
Therefore, the labour Court has taken a
view that the workman was not entitled to
get backwages upto the date of making
reference. Since the said denial has not
been challenged by the workman by filing
writ petition or otherwise, I cannot examine
the validity or illegality of the said findings
in totality of the facts of the case.

48. Therefore, the third contention
of the State-petitioner based upon the delay
in making reference also does not have any
force and is liable to be discarded.

49. Insofar as other findings
recorded in the award impugned are
concerned, I find that the view taken by
the Labour Court that termination of
services of respondent-workman was
contrary to the provisions of section 6-N
of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act,1947
does not suffer from any illegality or
perversity in view of the evidence on
record produced before the Labour
Court.

50. In view of above discussions, I do
not find any illegality or perversity in the
impugned award. The writ petition fails
and is accordingly, dismissed.

51. The respondent-workman shall
submit appropriate application before the
Comptent Court/Authority by giving a
calculation
of
the
backwages/salary
awarded under the impugned award with
effect from the date of reference till the
date of moving such application. The
Court/Authoirty
shall
call
upon
the
employer
to
submit
calculations/computations
of
the
backwages/salary
payable
to
the
respondent-workman
under
the
award
impugned. While computing/calculating
the
same,
all
increments
in
the
backwages/salary, which the workman
would have been entitled to, with effect
from the date of reference shall also be
added
in
award
of
the
"entire
backwages/salary".

52. On submission of such application
by
the
respondent-workman,
the
Court/Authority
shall
pass
an
order
directing release of the benefits, so
computed and respondent-workman shall
be paid the same within a period of four
months from the date of moving of such
application.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1885
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SADHNA RANI
(THAKUR), J.

Application U/S 482 No. 45327 of 2019

Lalit Kumar ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Suresh chandra Pandey
1886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ram Chandra Uttam, Sri Vinay
Kumar Tripathi

A. Criminal law - Criminal Procedure
Code,
1973
-Section
482.-
Entire
proceedings under section 406 IPC under
challenge- Allegation- Applicant did not
execute sale deed- nor did he return
money-
Final
report
submitted
after
investigation-protest petition filed by the
opposite party no.2- allowed- further
investigation-again a final report was
submitted-
second
protest
petition-
treated as complaint applicant summoned
to face trial under Section 406 IPC.

B. Applicant moved application under
Section 468 Cr.P.C.- complaint regarding
the incident of 23.05.2011 registered on
23.06.2014-
cognizance
taken
on
11.03.2016- maximum punishment under
Section
406
IPC-3
years-cognizance
cannot be taken after three years of
lodging of complaint-both registration of
complaint and order of cognizance-time
barred.

C. Section 473 Cr.PC. - extension of period
of limitation in certain cases mentioned
therein- court has been empowered to
take cognizance of the offence after the
expiry of the period of limitation-if it is
satisfied
on
the
facts
and
the
circumstances of the case-delay has been
properly explained or that it is necessary
to do so in the interest of justice-in the
instant case FIR was lodged within timeopposite party no. 2 was continuously
busy in the proceedings of the said caseno laxity on his part- opp. party no. 2 is
entitled for benefit of extension of period
of limitation on the basis of section 473
Cr.P.C.- application dismissed.

HELD:
If we go through the provision under section
468 Cr.P.C., this section relates to the bar taking
cognizance after lapse of period of limitation.
Admittedly, the applicant has been summoned
to face trial for the offence under section 406
I.P.C. wherein the maximum sentence is 3 years
imprisonment or imprisonment with fine or both.
As per this section the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term up to 3 years and
the limitation period of taking cognizance in the
case is also 3 years. On the basis of this
provision only, the applicant makes a prayer that
the offence is of year 2011 complaint has been
registered on 23.6.2014 and cognizance has
been taken in the year 2016, so the complaint
and cognizance both are time barred.

If we go through the section 473 of Cr.P.C. it is
related to the extension of period of limitation in
certain cases mentioned therein. Vide this
section 473 Cr.P.C., the court has been
empowered to take cognizance of the offence
after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is
satisfied on the facts and the circumstances of
the case that delay has been properly explained
or that it is necessary to do so in the interest of
justice. Referring the Judgment of Bharat
Damodar Kale Anr. Vs St.of Andhra Pradesh
(2003) 8 SCC 559, learned counsel for the opp.
party no.2 submitted that in the present case
cognizance was taken on 11.3.2016 and the
revisional court confirmed the said order vide
order dated 15.7.2017. Section 473 Cr.P.C.
provides for the extension of period of
limitation, if the court is satisfied going through
the facts and circumstances of the case. In the
judgment of Bharat Damodar Kale (supra), the
Apex Court held that this limitation is only for
filing of a complaint and not for taking
cognizance. Regarding cause of action dated
23.5.2011, on the basis of an application under
section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the FIR was lodged on
17.9.2011. Thus, it would be considered that the
process has been initiated within time, hence,
the proceedings cannot be said to be time
barred.

From the perusal of the record, it is found that
after lodging the FIR within time, the opp. party
no. 2 had to face two final reports and then to
file two protest petitions. His second protest
petition
was
registered
as
complaint
on
23.6.2014. He had also to adduce the evidence
under sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in the
complaint and finally the court took cognizance
vide order dated 11.3.2016. This shows that the
opp. party no. 2 was continuously busy in the
proceedings of the said case. There was no
laxity on his part. In the opinion of the court,
5 All. Lalit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1887
the opp. party no. 2 is entitled for benefit of
extension of period of limitation on the basis of
section 473 Cr.P.C.

Application dismissed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

Bharat Damodar Kale & anr. Vs St.of Andhra
Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC 559

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani
(Thakur), J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant, learned counsel for the opp.
party no. 2 and perused the record.

2. By moving this application, the
prayer is made to quash the order dated
24.12.2018 and 11.3.2016 passed by
learned A.C.J.M., Court No. 4, Mathura, in
case crime no. 2171 of 2014, Nand Kishor
Vs. Lalit Kumar, and the order dated
30.9.2019 passed by Additional Sessions
Judge, Court No. 5, Mathura in Cr.
Revision No. 25 of 2019, Lalit Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and another. Prayer is also
made to quash the entire proceedings of
case no. 2171 of 2014 under section 406
I.P.C., police station Highway District
Mathura.

3. As per the facts of the case on
17.9.2011 an FIR under section 406 and
420 I.P.C. was lodged by the opp. Party no.
2 against the applicant Lalit Kumar
alleging therein that the opp. party no. 2
and the applicant had agreed orally for sale
of two plots belonging to the applicant to
the opp. party no. 2. Date 23.5.2011 was
fixed for the execution of the sale deed.
The whole consideration of Rs. 2 lacs had
been paid to the applicant in advance on the
date fixed for sale deed. All the stamp
papers were purchased in the name of the
applicant. The documentation was also
done on the same day and the same was
submitted in the registry office. But at the
time of registry, the applicant eloped. Thus,
the allegation is that after taking due
consideration and getting all the documents
prepared, the applicant neither executed the
sale deed nor returned the money to the
opp. party no. 2 and thus, cheated the opp.
party no. 2.

4. It has further been submitted that on
the basis of the application u/s 156 (3)
Cr.P.C., this FIR could hardly be lodged on
17.9.2011. After investigation Final Report
was submitted on 15.10.2021. On the
protest petition of the opp. party no. 2 the
F.R. was rejected and further investigation
was done but again the final report was
filed. On the protest of the opp. party no. 2
for the second time, it was treated as a
complaint and vide order dated 11.3.2016
the applicant was summoned to face trial
under section 406 I.P.C.

5. On 17.8.2017, The applicant moved
an application u/s 468 Cr.P.C. that after the
incident dated 23.5.2011 the complaint has
been
registered
on
23.6.2014,
the
cognizance has been taken on 11.3.2016
and the applicant has been summoned to
face trial under section 406 I.P.C. only.
Under
section
406
I.P.C.
maximum
punishment
is
three
years
simple
imprisonment. So the cognizance could not
be taken in his case after 3 years of lodging
the first information report. The complaint
has also been registered after 3 years of the
incident, thus, both the registration of
complaint and the order of cognizance are
time barred.

6. Vide order dated 11.3.2016 passed
by learned A.C.J.M. Court No. 4 Mathura,
the applicant was summoned to face trial
1888 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
under section 406 I.P.C. The application
13-B of the applicant was rejected. Vide
order dated 24.12.2018 passed by A.C.J.M.
Court No. 4 Mathura against that order the
revision was also dismissed on 30.9.2019.
Both the courts have wrongly rejected his
application/ revision and did not consider
his plea of section 468 Cr.P.C. hence, the
prayer is made to quash all the three above
mentioned orders.

7. Learned counsel for the opp. party
no. 2 however, opposed the prayer and
submitted that on 23.5.2011, the sale deed
was to be executed. Regarding the incident
dated 23.5.2011, the opp. party no. 2 had
moved an application to S.S.P. concerned
on 26.7.2011. Later on, on the basis of this
application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.,
the FIR was registered on 17.9.2011.

8. After investigation by police final
reports were filed by the police twice and
the opp. party no. 2 had to move protest
petitions against both the final reports. His
second protest petition was registered as
complaint
and
after
recording
the
statements under section 200 and 202
Cr.P.C. only, the cognizance was taken on
11.3.2016 against the applicant. Thus the
opp.
party
no.2
was
continuously
contesting the matter. If the procedure takes
long
time,
the
applicant
cannot
be
penalized for this delay, hence, prayer is
made accordingly.

9. If we go through the provision
under section 468 Cr.P.C., this section
relates to the bar taking cognizance after
lapse of period of limitation. Admittedly,
the applicant has been summoned to face
trial for the offence under section 406 I.P.C.
wherein the maximum sentence is 3 years
imprisonment or imprisonment with fine or
both. As per this section the offence is
punishable with imprisonment for a term
up to 3 years and the limitation period of
taking cognizance in the case is also 3
years. On the basis of this provision only,
the applicant makes a prayer that the
offence is of year 2011 complaint has been
registered on 23.6.2014 and cognizance has
been taken in the year 2016, so the
complaint and cognizance both are time
barred.

10. If we go through the section 473 of
Cr.P.C. it is related to the extension of
period of limitation in certain cases
mentioned therein. Vide this section 473
Cr.P.C., the court has been empowered to
take cognizance of the offence after the
expiry of the period of limitation, if it is
satisfied on the facts and the circumstances
of the case that delay has been properly
explained or that it is necessary to do so in
the interest of justice. Referring the
Judgment of Bharat Damodar Kale Anr.
Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2003) 8 SCC
559, learned counsel for the opp. party no.2
submitted that in the present case cognizance
was taken on 11.3.2016 and the revisional
court confirmed the said order vide order
dated 15.7.2017. Section 473 Cr.P.C. provides
for the extension of period of limitation, if the
court is satisfied going through the facts and
circumstances of the case. In the judgment of
Bharat Damodar Kale (supra), the Apex
Court held that this limitation is only for
filing of a complaint and not for taking
cognizance. Regarding cause of action dated
23.5.2011, on the basis of an application
under section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the FIR was
lodged on 17.9.2011. Thus, it would be
considered that the process has been initiated
within time, hence, the proceedings cannot be
said to be time barred.

11. From the perusal of the record, it is
found that after lodging the FIR within
5 All. Brijesh Kumar Tiwari @ Pankaj Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
1889
time, the opp. party no. 2 had to face two
final reports and then to file two protest
petitions. His second protest petition was
registered as complaint on 23.6.2014. He
had also to adduce the evidence under
sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. in the
complaint and finally the court took
cognizance vide order dated 11.3.2016.
This shows that the opp. party no. 2 was
continuously busy in the proceedings of the
said case. There was no laxity on his part.
In the opinion of the court, the opp. party
no. 2 is entitled for benefit of extension of
period of limitation on the basis of section
473 Cr.P.C.

12. Learned counsel for the applicant
drawing the attention of the court toward
the judgment in Prem Lata and another VS.
State of Rajsthan and another claimed the
benefit of his argument on the basis of
section 468 of Cr.P.C. that the complaint
was registered and the cognizance was
taken on complaint after more than 5 years
of the alleged committal of the crime but if
we go through this judgment, it is found
that as per the facts of this case there was a
delay of 12 years between filing the
complaint and taking cognizance and this
delay was attributed to the complainant
who did not produce any witness in support
of his protest petition but in the case in
hand, the position is different. Here delay is
caused for the reason not attributing to the
opp. party no. 2 / the complainant himself,
but it was due to this long procedure which
was
followed
due
to
the
peculiar
circumstances of the case, hence, learned
counsel for the applicant cannot get benefit
of this judgment filed by him.

13. No ground exists for quashing of
the orders dated 11.3.2016, 24.12.2018 and
30.9.2019 as prayed by the learned counsel
for the applicant above.

14. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C.
being devoid of merits is liable to be
dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1889
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 41462 of 2022

Brijesh Kumar Tiwari @ Pankaj
 ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Dr. C.P. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Deepak Dubey

Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure Code,
1973 - Section 482 - objection regarding
maintainability
of
application
under
section 482 Cr.P.C-against order rejecting
the discharge application made- applicant
asserted that entire proceedings of the
aforesaid
case
challenged-hence
application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is
maintainable-generally,
order
rejecting
discharge application shall be challenged
by filing a criminal revision-exceptional
cases-such orders may also be challenged
under
Section
482
Cr.P.C.-entire
proceedings challenged-hence, application
maintainable under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
(Para 10)

HELD:
From the perusal of the aforesaid judicial
precedents it is very much clear that an order
regarding rejection of the discharge application
would be generally challenged by filing a
criminal revision, but in some exceptional cases
such orders may also be challenged under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. So far as the quashment of