[ad_1]
Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Veenita Sankhala vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:18525) on 15 April, 2025
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2025:RJ-JD:18525]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 8404/2022
Veenita Sankhala D/o Sh. Satyendra Van Singh, Aged About 36
Years, B/c Sankhala, R/o Upparla Baas, Inside Mertiyaan Gate
Dist. Jodhpur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Sho Mahila P.s. (East), Police Commisnarate Jodhpur, Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kamini Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lalit Kishore Sen, PP
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
15/04/2025
1. By way of filing the present criminal misc. petition under
Section 528 BNSS, the petitioner has prayed for the following
reliefs:-
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed
that the MISC. petition of the application may kindly be
allowed and to quash and set aside the cognizance
taken as barred by limitation in FIR No.53/2016, P/S-
Mahila police satation (East), Dist- Jodhpur and to drop
out the whole proceeding initiated as Learned court is
not empowered to take cognizance in the concern
matter.
Any other favourable order which this Hon’ble
Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favor
of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
present case, the petitioner filed an FIR on 15.05.2016 against her
husband- Arvind Gehlot for the offences under Sections 498-A,
406, 323, 354 and 377 of IPC. While investigation in relation to
FIR was pending, the parties have entered into a compromise.
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:33:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18525] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8404/2022]
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted an application dated
01.06.2016 before the investigating agency stating inter alia that
she does not want to proceed against her husband. The
investigating agency thereupon, submitted final negative report
No.60/2016 before the competent criminal Court which was
accepted on 02.07.2017.
3. Learned counsel submitted that SHO of the concerned Police
Station on 29.09.2017 submitted a complaint against the
petitioner for offence under Section 182 IPC. The trial Court after
consideration of the complaint took cognizance against the
petitioner on 01.02.2021 i.e. after a lapse of three years and 6
months from the date of filing of the complaint. No application
seeking extension of period of limitation in the matter was filed.
As a matter of fact, the complaint itself is conspicuously silent
about the cause of delay in filing the complaint beyond the period
of one year. Learned counsel submitted that since the cognizance
has been taken against the petitioner after the limitation period
prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the impugned order dated
01.02.2021 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
4. Per Contra, learned Public Prosecutor submitted that delay in
the matter was procedural and, therefore, the same shall be
condoned and period of limitation may be extended as per the
provisions of Cr.P.C.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the
material available on record.
6. It is not in dispute before this Court that complaint against
the petitioner for offence under Section 182 IPC was submitted
before the learned trial Court beyond a period of one year from
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:33:52 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:18525] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8404/2022]
the date when the petitioner filed application before the SHO
concerned stating inter alia that she does not want to proceed
against her husband in relation to FIR No. 53/2016. The complaint
submitted before the learned trial Court is conspicuously silent
about delay in initiating the prosecution against the petitioner. So
also the impugned order dated 01.02.2021 also does not indicate
any reasons for condoning delay in filing the complaint.
7. In the opinion of this Court, since no sincere endeavor was
made by the prosecution before the learned trial Court to explain
such inordinate delay, the learned trial Court ought not to have
taken cognizance against the petitioner or have extended the
period of limitation. The impugned order dated 01.02.2021 thus
deserves to be set aside by this Court.
8. Consequently, present criminal misc. petition is allowed. The
impugned order dated 01.02.2021 and all proceedings arising out
of complaint dated 29.09.2017 submitted by the SHO concerned
against the present petitioner before the learned trial Court are
quashed and set aside.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
112-divya/-
(Downloaded on 16/04/2025 at 09:33:52 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_2]
Source link