Appeals allowed, judgment set aside, complaint quashed due to limitation, not maintainable.

The appeals were allowed, setting aside the impugned judgment and quashing the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 628 of 2011. The court found the complaint barred by limitation, determined the alleged offence was not a continuing offence, and declared the second complaint not maintainable due to previous dismissals on the same facts. The court emphasized that initiating criminal proceedings in this case amounted to an abuse of the legal process, especially considering the prior dismissal of complaints on the same subject matter.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Limitation in Criminal Cases under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
2. Concept of Continuing Offence under Section 472 Cr.P.C.
3. Maintainability of a Second Complaint on the Same Facts

Detailed Analysis:

Limitation in Criminal Cases under Section 468 Cr.P.C.:
Section 468 Cr.P.C. restricts courts from taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the limitation period. Section 469 defines when the limitation period begins, and Section 473 allows courts to condone delays if justified. The principle is that a crime never dies, and the delay in launching a criminal prosecution may be considered but not necessarily grounds for dismissal at the threshold. The court must record reasons for condoning delays, emphasizing the interest of justice.

Concept of Continuing Offence under Section 472 Cr.P.C.:
Section 472 Cr.P.C. states that for a continuing offence, a new limitation period begins at every moment the offence continues. A continuing offence creates a continuous source of injury, making the doer liable for the continuation of the injury. The distinction lies in whether the wrongful act's injury continues or is complete at a specific moment. The court referenced several cases, including Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare and Gokak Patel Volkart Ltd., to illustrate this concept. The court concluded that the present case did not constitute a continuing offence, as the alleged wrongful act (non-payment) did not recur after the rejection order dated 15.10.2001.

Maintainability of a Second Complaint on the Same Facts:
The court reviewed the maintainability of a second complaint in light of previous judgments, including Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar. A second complaint is permissible if the first was dismissed due to insufficient material or lack of understanding of the complaint's nature. However, it is not maintainable if the first complaint was decided on merit. In this case, multiple complaints by the respondent and his brother had been dismissed on merits, indicating that the second complaint was not maintainable.

Key Findings:
1. Limitation Period: The complaint was barred by limitation as the cause of action arose from the rejection order dated 15.10.2001, and the complaint was filed much later.
2. Continuing Offence: The court determined that the alleged offence was not a continuing offence since the wrongful act (non-payment) did not recur after the initial rejection.
3. Second Complaint: The second complaint was not maintainable as previous complaints on the same facts had been dismissed on merits.

Conclusion:
The appeals were allowed, the impugned judgment dated 13.3.2012 was set aside, and the proceedings in Complaint Case No. 628 of 2011 pending before the Additional C.J.M., Allahabad, were quashed. The court emphasized that the initiation of criminal proceedings was an abuse of the process of law, particularly given the dismissal of earlier complaints on the same subject matter.

---