Back
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N. V. ANJARIA
Roma Ahuja – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Key Points: - The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings, not the date of cognizance. (!) (!) (!) - The Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew held that cognizance is not the determinative date for limitation; the date of filing the complaint or initiation of prosecution is. This binds lower courts to follow that precedent. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment emphasizes the duty of lawyers to respect binding precedents and refrain from advancing arguments contrary to well-settled law merely to showcase argumentative skill. (!) (!) - Bharat Kale and Japani Sahoo were upheld as correct law by the Constitution Bench, and Krishna Pillai was restricted to its own facts. (!) (!) (!) (!) - The court reiterates the value of legal maxims in interpreting statutory provisions and their role in jurisprudence. (!) (!) (!) - The High Court’s quashing of FIR No. 121 of 2011 on limitation grounds was set aside; the appeals were allowed and the trial to proceed. (!) - The case clarifies that the initiation of criminal proceedings can occur upon filing a complaint or lodging an FIR, both constituting initiation. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
N.V. ANJARIA, J.
Leave granted.
2. These two appeals arise out of common order dated 30.01.2025, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 1170 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 7270 of 2016. Thereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by Respondent No. 2-the accused, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[Hereinafter, “Cr.PC”.] for quashing the First Information Report2[Hereinafter, “FIR”.] No. 121 of 2011.
2.1 The said FIR was in respect of the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18603[Hereinafter, “IPC”.], at P.S. Moti Nagar, lodged by the appellant-complainant herein. The FIR came to be quashed on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed on 29.05.2012, which was after a period of one year and 20 days from the date of incident and therefore the bar of limitation under Section 468, Cr.PC, was attracted.
3. The incident, as per the FIR, took place on 09.05.2011, when the appellant, along with her brother and father, had gone to the court of the Special Executive Magistrate, Moti Nagar, in connection with a case filed under Section 107 r
(1) Cognizance of offence(s) – Bar of limitation – Date of filing complaint or date on which criminal proceedings are initiated is relevant date for the purpose of counting limitation.(2) Administrat....
Point of Law : Language of Section 468(3) makes it imperative that the limitation provided for taking cognizance is in respect of the offence charged and not in respect of offence finally proved.
(1) Cognizance of offence – For the purpose of computing period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., relevant date is date of filing of complaint or date of institution of prosecution and not dat....
Point of law : "cognizance" is an act of the Court. The term "cognizance" has not been defined in Cr.P.C, That means taking of cognizance is application of mind or takes judicial notice of an offence....
For computing limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the relevant date is the filing of the complaint, not when the magistrate takes cognizance.
Cognizance taken by a Magistrate after the expiration of the limitation period is unlawful, violating due process rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
