Court: Delhi District Court.
Case Type: Revision Petition.
Date of Judgement: 06/12/2015.
Revisionist: Salekh Chand.
Respondent: Deepak Sharma
Bench:
- Justice Ravinder Dudeja.
Statutes Referred:
- Limitation Act.
- Code of Criminal Procedure.
Cases Referred:
- Subramanium Sethuraman Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4711.
- Urmila Devi Vs. Yudhvir Singh Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 2013.
- Ms. Romy Khanna Vs. State & Ors. 2011 (4) RCR (Criminal) 735.
- Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs. Ascharj Lal Chopra AIR 1978 SC 986.
Facts:
- The respondent was an instructor at ITI. The revisionist was also an instructor at the same institute.
- One Virender Sharma made a complaint to the Principal of ITI against the revisionist Salekh Chand on 24/09/2007. The complaint stated that Salekh Chand was forcing the complainant’s son to do individual work like preparing tea, washing utensils, etc.
- Virender Sharma was called to explain the allegations vide letter dated 26/09/2007.
- On 25/09/2007, Salekh Chand complained to the Principal alleging that Virender had abused and insulted and also made casteist remarks against him when he had called Virender Sharma on 25/09/2007. Salekh Chand also alleged that the incident happened because of one teacher’s instigation who belonged to the upper caste.
- A departmental enquiry was initiated against Salekh Chand on 11/10/2007.
- On 06/10/2007, Salekh Chand made another complaint to the ACP, Vivek Vihar, alleging that Virender Sharma was in conspiracy with Deepak Sharma.
- An FIR No.23/08 was registered at PS, Vivek Vihar under Section 9(i) (x) of the SC/ST Act.
- A departmental enquiry was initiated against Deepak Sharma.
- The enquiry committee gave Deepak Sharma a clean chit vide letter dated 04/07/2008 after nothing incriminating was found against him.
- In the case FIR No.23/08, the court discharged Deepak Sharma.
- Deepak Sharma alleged that Salekh Chand dragged him into the case to harass and defame him. He also alleged that Salekh Chand maliciously prosecuted him. Even after discharge from the case, Salekh Chand has been threatening him with dire consequences and threatening to reopen him in another case.
- Deepak Sharma thus filed a complaint against Salekh Chand under Section 500 and 506 of the IPC.
- The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate summoned revisionist Salekh Chand vide order dated 16/08/2013.
- This order has been challenged in the revision.
Issues:
- Was the revision petition maintainable?
The contention by the Revisionist:
- The revisionist came to know about the impugned order on the receipt of the summons on 08/11/20113.
- The revision application was filed within 47 days of receiving the summons on 24/01/2014. Therefore, from the knowledge of the order, the revision is within the period of limitation.
- The complaint filed by the respondent in the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate was filed 3 years after lodging the FIR.
- As the complaint had been filed beyond the limitation period, the court was precluded from taking cognizance thereof. Thus, the summoning order was without any jurisdiction.
The contention by the Respondent:
- According to Article 115 of the Limitation Act, the period prescribed for revision is 30 days.
- The revisionist filed for revision after a delay of 47 days. There is no explanation for the delay.
- Therefore, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Acts should be dismissed.
- The revision, being time-barred, must also be dismissed.
- It is not open to the revisionist to seek summons and seek discharge by filing the revision. Thus, the revision is not maintainable.
Obiter Dicta:
- Article 131 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act provides a limitation period of 90 days for filing the revision under the Code of Civil Procedure and the Code of Criminal Procedure from the date of the order, sentence or decree sought to be revised.
- Even though the impugned order is dated 16/08/2013, the revisionist got to know about the order only on the receipt of summons on 08/11/2013. So, the period of limitation shall commence from the date of knowledge, i.e. 08/11/2013.
- The Order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate can be challenged by revision under Section 397 of the Cr. PC. before the Sessions Court.
- The period of limitation for complaints under Section 500 of the IPC (people found guilty of defamation shall be punished with simple imprisonment for two years or fine or both) is governed by Section 468(2)(c) Cr. PC. (limitation period of 3 years for offences that are punishable with imprisonment of more than one year by not more than three years).
- Section 469(1)(a) provides for the period of limitation to commence from the date the offence was committed.
- The FIR No.23/08 was lodged against respondent Deepak Sharma on 29/01/2008. The FIR allegedly contained defamatory content. The period of limitation of 3 years will thus commence from 29/01/2008.
- The respondent’s complaint against Salekh Chand was filed before the court on 17/02/2011.
- As the complaint was filed beyond the limitation period, it was barred by Section 468(1)(c) of the Cr. PC.
Judgement:
- The Revision Petition is maintainable.
- The impugned dated 16/08/2013 was set aside.
Rationale:
- The revision petition was filed within the stipulated period of 90 days and was not barred by limitation.
- Revisional jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is available to challenge the order of the Magistrate, directing issuance of the summons.
- It was not permissible for the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of the limitation period.
Conclusion:
- The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate acted beyond its jurisdiction by taking cognizance of an offence beyond its limitation period.