Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mahesh R., filed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash the order of cognizance taken by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in C.C.No.164/2021, and the order passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.RP.No.170/2019. The respondent, K. Poornima, is the wife of the petitioner. They were married on 18-11-1991 and have a daughter. The respondent filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC alleging offences under Sections 498A, 494, 506 r/w 34 IPC, claiming that she was subjected to harassment for dowry from 30-09-1992 and that the petitioner married another woman. The complaint was filed in 2016, about 24 years after the alleged incidents. The trial court took cognizance on 25-05-2018. The petitioner challenged the cognizance order before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed on 28-09-2021. The High Court heard the matter. The main legal issue was whether the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC. The petitioner argued that the offences were punishable with imprisonment up to three years and the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period of three years. The respondent contended that the offence under Section 494 IPC is a continuing offence. The court analyzed the provisions and held that the offence under Section 494 IPC is not a continuing offence and the limitation period starts from the date of the second marriage. The court found that the complaint was filed after an inordinate delay of 24 years without any explanation. The court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of process of law. The court quashed the order of cognizance dated 25-05-2018 and the order of the Sessions Court dated 28-09-2021, and consequently quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.164/2021.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Limitation for Taking Cognizance - Section 468 CrPC - Delay in Filing Complaint - The court examined whether the complaint filed after 24 years from the alleged incidents was barred by limitation. Held that the complaint was hopelessly barred by limitation as the maximum period for taking cognizance of offences punishable with imprisonment up to three years is three years, and the delay was not explained. (Paras 10-15) B) Indian Penal Code - Offence of Bigamy - Section 494 IPC - Continuing Offence - The court considered whether the offence under Section 494 IPC is a continuing offence. Held that the offence of bigamy is not a continuing offence and the limitation period starts from the date of the second marriage. (Paras 12-13) C) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of Proceedings - Section 482 CrPC - Abuse of Process - The court held that allowing the prosecution to continue after such inordinate delay would be an abuse of process of law and quashed the cognizance order and the entire proceedings. (Paras 15-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order of cognizance taken by the trial court for offences under Sections 498A, 494, 506 r/w 34 IPC can be quashed on the ground of inordinate delay and lack of explanation, and whether the complaint is barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, quashed the order of cognizance dated 25.05.2018 passed by the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Mysuru in C.C.No.164/2021 and the order dated 28.09.2021 passed by the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mysuru in Crl.RP.No.170/2019, and consequently quashed the entire proceedings in C.C.No.164/2021.
Law Points
- Limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468 CrPC
- Inordinate delay in filing complaint
- Quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 CrPC
- Offence under Section 494 IPC is not continuing offence
- Delay of 24 years not explained
