2026 Supreme(SC) 364

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, N.V. ANJARIA, JJ.
Roma Ahuja – Appellant
Versus
The State And Another – Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1831-1832 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos.9971-9972 of 2025)
Decided On : 09-04-2026

IMPORTANT POINTS
(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) Administration of Justice – Role of Lawyers – Merely for the purpose of demonstrating argumentative skill, Lawyers ought not to eat up valuable public time of court by making submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent.
(3) Legal Maxims – Importance of legal maxims has to be acknowledged in process of development of law – They play role of enriching interpretational contents and adding to jurisprudential stuff.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 468 [Section 514 of BNSS] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 – 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 – Taking cognizance is an act of court over which prosecuting agency or complainant had no control and complaint which was otherwise filed within period of limitation cannot be made infructuous by an act of court which will cause prejudice to complainant – Act of court shall not prejudice anybody – Whether or not Magistrate has taken cognizance of an offence depends on facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down as to when Magistrate can be said to have taken cognizance – Point of time when cognizance is taken by court or Magistrate cannot supply certain, definitive or dependable criteria to treat it relevant for the purpose of reckoning limitation period. (Paras 5.4.2, 5.4.4, 5.7.1 and 5.7.2)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 468 [Section 514 of BNSS] – Cognizance of offence(s) – Bar of limitation – Computing point of limitation for the purpose of Section 468, Cr.P.C. is held to be date of filing complaint, date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Whether case belongs to one instituted before Magistrate under Section 173 or it is upon a complaint filed before police, what matters is date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Criminal proceedings can be said to have been initiated in both categories of complaint when complaint is filed before Magistrate or FIR is lodged before police – It remains a complaint made either to Magistrate or to police to become starting point of initiation of criminal proceedings – High Court committed patent error in quashing FIR – Impugned order set aside. (Paras 7.2, 7.3, 7.4, 10 and 11)

(C) Legal Maxims – Importance of legal maxims has to be acknowledged in process of development of law – Legal maxims which trace their origin and birth in experience of older times and emerge in progress of civilization, blend reasonableness, wisdom, truthfulness and objectivity, to be much useful in developing legal concepts out of codified law and in interpreting statutory provisions – They play role of enriching interpretational contents and adding to jurisprudential stuff. (Paras 5.5.4 and 5.6)

(D) Administration of Justice – Role of Lawyers – As disclosure of honest and full facts before Court is part of fair conduct on part of Lawyers, respecting binding precedence of Judgments and conceding its applicability in a case is also a duty in fairness to be discharged by Advocates in conducting their case – Giving up an argument where a point of law is already decided is a professional virtue – It is part of ethics in professional conduct before Court – As courts are bound by law of precedent and to follow law laid down in binding judgment of Constitution Bench, Lawyers are also expected to respect strong-operated precedent emanating from a judgment holding field unless exceptional grounds exist to distinguish decision are available – Merely for the purpose of demonstrating argumentative skill, Lawyers ought not to eat up valuable public time of court by making submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent – Constitution Bench judgment is a beckoning binding precedent and courts are bound by it. (Paras 8, 8.1 and 9)

Facts of the case:

FIR was in respect of the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, at P.S. Moti Nagar, lodged by appellant-complainant herein. FIR came to be quashed on the ground that 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 bar of limitation under Section 468, Cr.P.C., was attracted.

Findings of Court:

The impugned order dated 30.01.2025 in Crl. M.C. No. 1170 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 7270 of 2016 by High Court are hereby set aside.

Result : Appeals allowed.