Raghuvinder Singh v. Respondent

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that FIR dated 15.12.1998 under Section 447 IPC was registered against the petitioner and thereafter the police filed the Charge sheet on 06.02.2000 and vide Order dated 06.03.2000 the learned Trial Judge tool< cognizance of the offence and subsequently vide order dated 29.08.2000, framed charges against the petitioner in the matter.

2. The petitioner has challenged the FIR No. 873/1998 dated 25.12.1998 lodged under Section 447 IPC PS Mehrauli, New Delhi and submits that under Section 468 (b) IPC, the learned Trial Judge has no power to take the cognizance after the expiry of six months from the date of lodging the FIR.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that vide order dated 13.07.2010 passed by this Court qua the same property, it has been directed that the petitioner should not be thrown out from the property i.e. Khasra No. 85, B-44/2 Freedom Fighter Colony, Neb Sarai village, New Delhi.

4. Keeping in mind the provisions of Section 468 and the Judgment ofthis Court, he has sought FIR to be quashed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for State submits that the charge has already been framed against the petitioner and he has not CRLM.C. 473/2011 Page 1of 2 2011:DHC:11404 challenged the charge which was framed on 06.02.2000 and cognizance on which was taken on 06.03.2000. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the petitioner has filed the instant petition after eleven years.

5. It is further submitted that under Section 473 Cr.P.C., the Court has power to take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary in the interest of Justice.

6 At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought liberty to amend the petition and challenge the charge framed against the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the State has further pointed out that he has remedy available before the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge to challenge the order on charge and therefore, this petition is not maintainable.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the points raised herein before the Learned District and Sessions Judge.

9. Needless to say the petitioner has all the liberty subject to the law applicable.

10. Accordingly, the CrI.M.C. No.473/2011 is dismissed as withdrawn.

11. No order as to costs.

12. Dasti.

SURESH KAITJ JULY 06, 2011 j