Udai Shankar Awasthi v. State of U.P., (2013) 2 SCC 435
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 472 and 468 - Continuing offence" and instantaneous offence" - Distinction between - Law as to, summarised -
Offences alleged under Ss. 403 and 406 IPC - Non-payment of outstanding dues for work done under contract - Alleged
offence as to - Nature of - Held, the same was not a continuing offence, as the same had not recurred subsequent to
date of rejection of representation made to make payment of said dues, even though the damage caused by it may have
continued,
Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that, in the case of a continuing offence, the
ingredients of the offence continue, i.e., endure even after the period
of consummation, whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence
takes place once and for all i.e. when the same actually takes place. In
such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage
resulting from the injury may itself continue.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 468 and 472 - Delay in approaching court - Explanation as to - Repeated representations made after the first
representation is rejected and communicated to person aggrieved - Effect of - Held, such repeated representations will
not enable the person aggrieved to explain the delay,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 468, 473, 154, 190 and 200 - Delay in launching criminal prosecution - Effect of - Condonation of delay - Relevant
considerations - Duty of court - Held, delay may not itself be a ground for dismissing complaint at threshold - In certain
exceptional circumstances, taking into consideration gravity of charge, court may condone delay recording reasons for
the same in the event that it is found necessary to condone such delay in the interest of justice,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 202 [as amended by CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2005] - Postponement of issue of process where accused resides in an
area beyond territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate concerned - Provision as to, under amended S. 202 - Nature and object
of - Compliance therewith - Obligation of Magistrate concerned as to - Mandatory nature of,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 482, 190(1)(a), 200, 202, 204 and 468 - Quashing of complaint - Grounds - Abuse of process of court - Subsequent
complaint filed on same facts after dismissal of earlier ones on merits - That too beyond prescribed period of limitation
under CrPC - Arbitration proceedings with respect to same subject-matter pending before District Judge by way of
challenge to arbitral award - Arbitrator had rejected complainant's claim as to present controversy - In such a fact
situation, held, present complaint was not maintainable - Proceedings in relation thereto amounted to abuse of process
of court, hence quashed,
Generally
Criminal offence - Nature of - Is a wrong against the State and the society as a whole, even though the same is
committed against an individual,
Print Page
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 472 and 468 - Continuing offence" and instantaneous offence" - Distinction between - Law as to, summarised -
Offences alleged under Ss. 403 and 406 IPC - Non-payment of outstanding dues for work done under contract - Alleged
offence as to - Nature of - Held, the same was not a continuing offence, as the same had not recurred subsequent to
date of rejection of representation made to make payment of said dues, even though the damage caused by it may have
continued,
Thus, in view of the above, the law on the issue can be
summarised to the effect that, in the case of a continuing offence, the
ingredients of the offence continue, i.e., endure even after the period
of consummation, whereas in an instantaneous offence, the offence
takes place once and for all i.e. when the same actually takes place. In
such cases, there is no continuing offence, even though the damage
resulting from the injury may itself continue.
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 468 and 472 - Delay in approaching court - Explanation as to - Repeated representations made after the first
representation is rejected and communicated to person aggrieved - Effect of - Held, such repeated representations will
not enable the person aggrieved to explain the delay,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 468, 473, 154, 190 and 200 - Delay in launching criminal prosecution - Effect of - Condonation of delay - Relevant
considerations - Duty of court - Held, delay may not itself be a ground for dismissing complaint at threshold - In certain
exceptional circumstances, taking into consideration gravity of charge, court may condone delay recording reasons for
the same in the event that it is found necessary to condone such delay in the interest of justice,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
S. 202 [as amended by CrPC (Amendment) Act, 2005] - Postponement of issue of process where accused resides in an
area beyond territorial jurisdiction of Magistrate concerned - Provision as to, under amended S. 202 - Nature and object
of - Compliance therewith - Obligation of Magistrate concerned as to - Mandatory nature of,
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Ss. 482, 190(1)(a), 200, 202, 204 and 468 - Quashing of complaint - Grounds - Abuse of process of court - Subsequent
complaint filed on same facts after dismissal of earlier ones on merits - That too beyond prescribed period of limitation
under CrPC - Arbitration proceedings with respect to same subject-matter pending before District Judge by way of
challenge to arbitral award - Arbitrator had rejected complainant's claim as to present controversy - In such a fact
situation, held, present complaint was not maintainable - Proceedings in relation thereto amounted to abuse of process
of court, hence quashed,
Generally
Criminal offence - Nature of - Is a wrong against the State and the society as a whole, even though the same is
committed against an individual,
No comments:
Post a Comment