TMI Blog1993 (4) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The appellant filed a petition of complaint against her husband, accused-respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the respondent ), alleging that she was married to the said respondent and an amount of ₹ 5,000/- along with gold ring and wrist watch, was given to him on the eve of the marriage. Later at the instance of her mother-in-law, who was also made an accused, she was being maltreated and even abused by the accused persons including her husband. She further alleged that her husband often used to beat her and had been insisting that she should get another sum of ₹ 10,000/- from her parents for his business. Ultimately, the respondent married again and has got a second wife. The other accused persons have actively asso ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en filed within three years from the year 1985 in view of Section 468 of the Code. Nothing has been said in the order of the High Court, so far the offence under Section 494 is concerned, for which the period of imprisonment prescribed is up to seven years. There cannot be any dispute that in view of the allegation regarding the second marriage by the respondent during the continuance of the first marriage, prima facie an offence under Section 494 of the Penal Code, was disclosed in the complaint and there was no question of Section 468 of the Code being applicable to an offence under Section 494 of the penal code. 5. Earlier there was no period of limitation for launching a prosecution against the accused. But delay initiating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion has not been set up as a defence. Section 5 of that Act enables any Court to entertain any appeal or application after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period . So far Section 473 of the Code is concerned, the scope of that Section is different. Section 473 of the Code provides:- Extension of period of limitation in certain cases.- Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the requirement of the justice to condone or ignore such delay. As such, whenever the bar of Section 468 is applicable, the Court has to apply its mind on the question, whether it is necessary to condone such delay in the interests of justice. While examining the question as to whether it is necessary to condone the delay in the interest of justice, the Court has to take note of the nature of offence, the class to which the victim belongs, including the background of the victim. If the power under Section 473 of the Code is to be exercised in the interests of justice, then while considering the grievance by a lady, of torture, cruelty and inhuman treatment, by the husband and the relatives of the husband, the interest of justice requires a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such, Courts while considering the question of limitation for an offence under Section 498A i.e. subjecting a woman to cruelty by her husband or the relative of her husband, should judge that question, in the light of Section 473 of the Code, which requires the Court, not only to examine as to whether the delay has been properly explained, but as to whether it is necessary to do so in the interest of justice . 8. In the case of Bhagirath Kanoria v. State of M.P. [1985]1 SCR 626 , this Court even after having held that non-payment of the employer's contribution to the Provident Fund before the due date, was a continuing offence, and such the period of limitation prescribed by Section 468 was not applicable, still referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... age, an offence under Section 494 of the Penal Code was also disclosed which is punishable by imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years. The High Court taking into consideration Section 468, has come to the conclusion that the complaint in respect of the offence under Section 498A which prescribes imprisonment for a term up to three years, was barred by time. Nothing has been said by the High Court in respect of the offence under Section 494 of the Penal Code, to which Section 468 of the Code is not applicable the punishment being for a term extending up to seven years. Even in respect of allegation regarding an offence under Section 489A of the Penal code, it appears that the attention of the High Court was not drawn to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
