JUDGMENT
S.S. Grewal, J.
1. This petition is directed against the order of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Hoshiarpur dated 17th December, 1988, whereby, the complaint filed’ fey respondent-wife, was held to be well within time, and, the application filed by accused-petitioner was dismissed on the ground, that, cognizance of the offence under Section 405/406 of the Indian Penal Code could be taken with regard to misappropriation of articles of” dowry constituting Istri Dhan relating to the year 1982, even though the complaint was filed after the said offences.
2. Before condoning the delay the learned trial Court took into consideration two factors, firstly, that the complainant-wife had moved an application for obtaining decree of divorce against the present petitioner under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the decree for divorce was granted by the District Judge, Hoshiarpur on 12th August, 1986; secondly, that the complainant wife had served regular notice to the husband on 15th August, 1986, whereby, the petitioner husband was asked to return all the articles of dowry constituting the Istri Dhan and for this purpose two, or, three months time was utilized.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it was urged that no application for condonation of delay for taking cognizance was moved on behalf of complainant wife. This submission of the counsel for the petitioner would not be sufficient to set aside the impugned order passed by the learned trial Court, inasmuch as the wife had replied to the application moved on behalf of the husband, wherein, the objection that no cognizance could be taken after period of four years had been taken.
4. Provisions of Section 470 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) may not be strictly applicable to the facts of the case in hand. However, the fact remains that under Section 473 of the Code the trial Court had ample jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence even after the expiry of the period of limitation, if, it was satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay had properly been explained and it was necessary to do so in the interest of justice. Perusal of the impugned order, would indicate that the trial Court had acted under Section 473 of the Code in condoning the delay, in view of the facts and circumstances, of the present case, referred to above, as well the general tendency about increase in such offences in respect of Istri Dhan belonging to the wife. It is quite evident that the trial Court was satisfied that the delay had been properly explained and in the interest of Justice it was necessary to take cognizance of the offence of criminal breach of trust.
5. The Single Bench authority of Delhi High Court in Banarsi Ram v. N.N. Vasudev, reported as 1984 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 527, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is not fully applicable to the facts and, circumstances of the case in hand, and, is clearly distinguishable inasmuch as in that particular case no reasons were assigned by the complainant even by way of reply to the application of the accused in which objection regarding limitation had been raised. In the instant case the fact that the proceedings under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 were initiated and the decree for divorce was granted on 12th August, 1986 finds specific mention in the complaint itself.
6. For the foregoing reasons I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. The petitioner, through his counsel, is directed to appear before the trial Court on 23rd May, 1990. The trial Court would dispose of this case expeditiously. Copy of this order be also sent to the Court concerned through Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, for compliance.