IN THE COURT OF LD. P.M. J.J.B.

SHIMLA-1
In re:
State
Versus
Matidhar

Case U/S 279, 337 & 338 IPC and 181 M.V.Act.

Application on behalf of the accused

Matidhar for dropping the proceedings
and dismissing the action/complaint, as
time barred U/S 468 Cr.P.C.
Respectfully Sheweth,
1. That the above mentioned case is pending before this Hon’ble
court and fixed for evidence of the prosecution for 5.4.2007.
2. That the accused/applicant submits that the proceedings against
him U/S 279, 337 & 338 IPC and 181 M.V.Act are not
maintainable for the following reasons:
a. That this is the case of prosecution that the accused
committed the offences U/S 279, 337 & 338 IPC and 181
M.V.Act on dated 26.6.2002.
b. That the case lingered on in the court of Ld. J.M.Rampur
till 13.10.2006, when the said court forwarded the case to
this Hon’ble court as the case was not triable by him, the
applicant accused being a juvenile at the time of the
commission of the offence.
c. That the proceedings at Rampur court are non-est and
without jurisdiction. This court after receiving the case
from Rampur court after 4.12.2006 took cognizance of the
offences and ordered the trial of the applicant/accused as
juvenile offender. The accusations U/S 241 Cr.P.C.
believably have been put to him. All the offences
 allegedly committed by applicant are punishable for less
then three years. This being the position the court could
not have taken cognizance of the offences after three
years i.e. 26.6.2005. No orders for condonation of any
delay were passed by the court U/S 473 Cr.P.C. The order
U/S 473 Cr.P.C. for condoning the delay if any can be
passed before the cognizance is taken. So the prosecution
is barred by limitation U/S 468 Cr.P.C., the objection
which inadvertently and due to oversight was not taken
earlier.
d. That no similar application has either been filed or is
pending in this court or in any other court in India.

It is, therefore, prayed that the case be dropped as

time barred. It is, further prayed that the prosecution evidence be not
called for the present and this objection petition be decided first
according to law.
The applicant shall ever pray.

Applicant
Through Counsel

Shimla Maya Chila

Date: 12.3.2007 Advocate