UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI versus STATE OF U.P. ANR.

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 935 · Decided: 09-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.S. CHAUHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 935 
UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. 8. ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 61 of 2013) 
JANUARY 9, 2013 
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND JAGDISH SINGH 
KHEHAR,JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 
A 
B 
c 
s.482 - Termination of contract between a proprietary firm 
and a company - Initiation of arbitration proceedings - The 
a/legation of the firm against the officials of the company that 
they removed certain property, kept in the premises of the 
company -
The arbitrator rejected the allegation - Three 
0 
complaints by the proprietors of the firm dismissed - One 
complaint entertained by the Magistrate - Petition by the 
officials of the Company for quashing the criminal 
proceedin9s - Dismissed by High Court - On appeal, held 
The criminal proceedings were abuse of the process of the 
E 
Court - Complaint case was not maintainable. 
ss.468, 469, 472 and 473 -
Termination of contract 
between proprietary firm and company - Complaint by the 
proprietor of the firm against officials of the company after a 
period of 15 years - Held: Limitation for taking cognizance is 
F 
3 years - In the fact situation of the case, the offence alleged 
is not a continuing offence, even though the effect caused by 
it may be continuous - Limitation. 
s.202 (as amended by Amendment Act, 2005) - It is 
G 
. mandatory for the Court to postpone the issue of process, if 
the accused falls outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Court 
- In the instant case, the Magistrate was wrong in issuing 
summons as the ·accused were outside his territorial 
jurisdiction. 
935 
H 
936 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Criminal Jurisprudence - Law does not prohibit second 
complaint even on the same facts. if the earlier complaint was 
decided on the basis of insufficient material, or the order was 
passed without understanding the nature of complaint, or 
complete facts could not be placed, or where certain material 
B facts came to knowledge of the complainants after disposal 
of the first complaint - Where earlier complaint is decided on 
merits after full consideration of the case, second complaint 
is not maintainable. 
Limitation.- Law of Limitation - Prescribed under Cr.P.C. 
C - Observance of - Held: Law of /imitation prescribed under 
Cr.P. C. must be observed, but in exceptional circumstances 
- The principle of condonation of delay is based on general 
rule of criminal justice system that 'a crime never dies'-
Criminal court may condone delay in tne interest of justice 
D recording reasons for the same -
Code of Criminal 
Procedure, 1973 - ss.468, 469, 472 and 473 - Delay -
Condonation of. 
Delay -
Question of delay in launching criminal 
E proceedings - May not by itself be a ground for dismissing 
the complaint at the threshold. 
Criminal Law - 'Continuing offence' and 'Instantaneous 
offence' - Difference between. 
F 
Maxim -
'nulfum tempus out locus occurrit regi' -
Applicability. 
The works contract, awarded by IFFCO to the firm, 
of which respondent No.2 was the proprietor, was 
G terminated. The matter was referred to arbitrator. The 
arbitrator rejected the claim of respondent No.2 whereby 
he had alleged that the items kept in the godown of their 
firm, which was located within the premises of IFFCO, 
were removed by the officials of IFFCO. However, the 
H arbitrator accepted some other claims. The application 
UDAI SHANKAR AWASTHI v STATE OF U.P. & ANR. 937 
challenging the award of the arbitrator .is still pending. 
A 
Brother of respondent No. 2 had filed 2 complaints 
against the officers of IFFCO and the appellants u/ss. 323, 
504, 506, 406 and 120-B IPC and u/ss.147, 148, 323, 504, 
506, 201 and 379 IPC respectively. Both the complaints 
were dismissed. Respondent No.2 had also filed a 
B 
complaint against the 'appellants u/ss. 323, 504, 506, 406 
and 120-B IPC, wherein the police report stated that the 
allegations made in the complaint were false. Respondent 
No.2 filed another complaint u/ss.403 and 406 IPC, of 
which congnizance was taken and bailable warrants c 
were issued against the appellants. Appellants filed 
application u/s.482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal 
proceedings a_gainst them. The application was 
dismissed by High Court. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant appeals, criminal proceedings 
must be labeled as an abuse of the process of the court, 
particularly in view of the fact that, with respect to enact 
the same subject matter, various complaint cases ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.