TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal partially allowed; Magistrate to reconsider limitation for Section 498-A IPC, discharge order for Section 406 IPC upheld.</h1> <h3>ARUN VYAS & ANR. Versus ANITA VYAS</h3> The appeal was allowed in part. The Magistrate must reconsider the question of limitation for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, taking into account ... - Issues Involved:1. Whether the learned Magistrate can discharge an accused after taking cognizance of an offence but before the trial.2. Whether the learned Magistrate was right in discharging the appellants on the grounds that the complaint was barred by limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C.Summary:Issue 1: Discharge of Accused After Taking CognizanceThe court examined Section 239 Cr.P.C., which mandates that a Magistrate must discharge the accused if, after considering the police report, documents u/s 173 Cr.P.C., and any necessary examination of the accused, and after hearing both parties, the Magistrate finds the charge to be groundless. The Magistrate must record reasons for such a decision. Section 239 must be read with Section 240 Cr.P.C., which allows the framing of charges if there is prima facie evidence. The court concluded that if the Magistrate finds the charge to be groundless or the cognizance itself was contrary to law (e.g., barred by limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C.), the Magistrate can discharge the accused at the stage of framing the charge.Issue 2: Barred by Limitation u/s 468 Cr.P.C.The court discussed Chapter XXXVI of the Cr.P.C., which deals with the limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Section 468 Cr.P.C. bars taking cognizance after the expiry of the limitation period, which is defined based on the severity of the offence. Section 473 Cr.P.C. allows for the extension of this period if the delay is properly explained or if it is necessary in the interests of justice. The court noted that the essence of the offence u/s 498-A IPC is cruelty, a continuing offence, and each act of cruelty provides a new starting point for limitation. The last act of cruelty was on October 13, 1988, making the complaint filed on December 22, 1995, barred by limitation u/s 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. However, the Magistrate did not consider Section 473 Cr.P.C., which could extend the limitation period in the interests of justice.The court cited Vanka Radhamanohari vs. Vanka Venkata Reddy & Ors., emphasizing that courts should consider Section 473 Cr.P.C. for offences u/s 498-A IPC to ensure justice. The High Court was correct in setting aside the Magistrate's order regarding Section 498-A IPC but incorrect regarding Section 406 IPC, as no explanation for the delay was provided.Conclusion:The appeal was allowed in part. The Magistrate must reconsider the question of limitation for the offence u/s 498-A IPC, taking into account Section 473 Cr.P.C. and the interests of justice. The discharge order for Section 406 IPC was upheld.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
