Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010225132014 2025:GAU-AS:11336 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.Pet./212/2014 ISHWAR PRASAD JALAN S/O LT. MAHABIR PRASAD JALAN R/O A.T. ROAD, HIJUGURI P.O. HIJUGURI, P.S. TINSUKIA DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR 2:SRI SABYASACHI HAZRA S/O DR. KANAK RAM HAZRA R/O 114A BAKUL BAGAN ROAD P.S. BHOWANIPUR POSTAL ZONE KOLKATTA- 700025 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.S CHAUHAN, MR.A R SHOME,MS.M DAS Advocate for the Respondent : MRSS KEJRIWAL, MR.S K KEJRIWAL,PP, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRANJAL DAS JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Date : 05-08-2025 Heard Mr. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Page No.# 2/5 Mr. S.K. Kejriwal, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 as well as Ms. S.H. Bora, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State/respondent No. 1. 2. The instant criminal petition has been filed by the petitioner namely, Ishwar Prasad Jalan, aggrieved by the continuance of the criminal proceeding before the court of learned JMFC, Tinsukia in GR No. 1061/2005. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts in a short compass are that the petitioner herein had filed Money Suits being M.S. No. 42/2004 dated 16.12.2004 and M.S. No. 09/2004 dated 09.01.2004 against the respondent No. 2 Sabyasachi Hazra and his wife seeking recovery of money of Rs. 14,06,250/- and Rs. 6,57,850/- respectively. After trial, the Money Suits came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge vide judgment and order dated 06.04.2011 in M.S. No. 09/2004 and judgment and order dated 27.11.2008 in M.S. No. 42/2004. 4. The respondent No. 2 was aggrieved by 7(seven) documents allegedly forged on the basis of which the Money Suit was filed and subsequently, dismissed. With the said grievance, he filed an FIR dated 19.11.2005 before the Tinsukia Police Station vide Tinsukia P.S. Case No. 591/2005 which was registered under Sections 181/182/193/196/200/425/468/ 471/474 of IPC (corresponding to GR No. 1061/2005). The investigation resulted in a charge sheet dated 27.06.2013 i.e. after approximately 8 years. Subsequently, the learned Trial court explained offences under Section 465 IPC under which the Page No.# 3/5 charge sheet had been submitted and the case proceeded to trial. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended on several points namely- (i) that the taking cognizance by the learned Trial court was barred as it was much beyond the stipulated 3(three) years in terms of Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.P.C. (ii) that since the allegation pertain to forgery of documents submitted in Court; therefore, the initiation of complaint had to be strictly within the procedural stipulation under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. and that the same was done thereby, fatally damaging the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed before the Court a notification dated 09.12.2022 issued by Government of Assam instructing the public prosecutors to invoke Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawing cases punishable up to 3(three) years except the categories of cases enumerated. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has fairly submitted that considerable time has elapsed since the initiation of prosecution filed the FIR and in the meantime, the informant is also quite old and he has no objection if the petition is allowed. 7. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has fairly submitted that in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Laxmi Narayan & Ors., reported in (2019) 5 SCC 688, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that criminal proceedings can be quashed pursuant to any amicable settlement between the parties, subject to considerations such as nature of offence and societal impact. 8. Admittedly, the applicable limitation period in terms of Section Page No.# 4/5 468 is 3(three) years. However, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the charge sheet itself was filed in the year 2013 i.e. after a lapse of 8(eight) years. Needless to say that the order of cognizance would be post the said date much beyond the limitation period of 3(three) years. 9. From the perusal of the trial court record, I do not find any order of the learned Magistrate invoking the powers under Section 473 Cr.P.C. condoning the long delay of 8(eight) years in taking cognizance initiating the prosecution before the Court. 10. It is well settled that the issue of limitation in criminal law wherever applicable, is in respect to the date of cognizance. Without any condonation of delay, any order of cognizance beyond the limitation period would be a fatal defect in the prosecution and such prosecution cannot be permitted to continue. 11. In the instant case, in the absence of delay condonation order the taking of cognizance and thereby, initiation of the prosecution before the learned trial court was much beyond the period of limitation and thereby, the said criminal proceeding suffers from a incurable infirmity. 12. Further, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 about the said party not having objection to the petitioner can also be taken into account. The notification of the Government of Assam, mentioned above, is an additional factor in considering the prayer for quashing. However, the main reason why the prosecution Page No.# 5/5 cannot be continued is the fatal defect of cognizance beyond the period of limitation without condonation- as has been already mentioned and discussed above. 13. Accordingly, I allow the petition and the proceeding of G.R. Case No. 1061/2005 pending before the learned JMFC, Tinsukia is hereby quashed. 14. Send back the trial court record. 15. The criminal petitioner stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant