BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit W. Joshi, JJ.
Musin Babulal Thengade and Ors. – Applicants
versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Application No.887 of 2023
Decided on 29.1.2025

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Limitation – Prosecution cannot be nullified at the threshold on the ground of limitation and normally the matter should be left to the discretion of the learned trial Court to decide as to whether cognizance of the offence should be taken after the limitation prescribed has expired.
(2) Ratio of case – It is settled legal principle that judgments of the Courts have to be interpreted in the backdrop of facts of the particular case. Ratio of a case has to be understood and appreciated in the backdrop of the facts in which the judgment is delivered.
(3) Law laid down – The law laid down in the judgment cannot be divorced from the facts of the case in which it is delivered.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A, 323, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 – Quahsment of proceedings – Sustainability of – On the ground of Limitation – On facts held, the limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code shall commence from the last act of cruelty – Offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is a continuing offence implies that each act of cruelty would offer new starting point of limitation – Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period – Such interpretation will render Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which does not appear to be the intention of legislature. Had there been intention to exclude Section 498-A of the IPC from the sweep of Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 express provision could have been made for the said purpose – Petition allowed in part, proceedings partly quashed.

Held: Having regard to the facts of the present case, i.e. allegation by the wife regarding ill-treatment including abuses and physical act of beating on the part of the husband for demand of dowry, the Covid-19 situation and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the case is made out for extension of time for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 473 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – Thus, in the interest of justice that cognizance of the matter should be taken although the same is barred by limitation.

On facts, last alleged incident is dated 20.10.2019 and respondent No.2 had approached the Women Grievance Redressal Cell by filing complaint on 11.11.2022 and had thereafter lodged the First Information Report on 06.01.2023. The charge sheet is filed on 29.01.2023. Thus, the delay that is caused in the matter is less than one month if we consider the date of approaching Women Grievance Redressal Cell and around two and half months when we consider the date of lodging of First Information Report, thus, the matter need not be remitted to the learned Magistrate to decide the issue of limitation.

The applicant No.1 has failed to make out any case for interference.

The allegations in the First Information Report and other statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are against applicant No.1-husband. There is one omnibus statement in the First Information Report against applicant Nos.2 to 4, stating that they had demanded Rs.2,00,000/- along with applicant No.1 and had abused her, beaten her and did not offer food to her in order to coerce and pressurize her to fulfill the demand. These allegations are clearly general in nature. They are absolutely vague. The date, time or even tentative period of the alleged wrong on the part of applicant No.2 to 4 is not mentioned. Apart from this, specific act is not attributed to any of the applicant Nos.2 to 4. The allegation, apart from being vague, general and unspecific, is also omnibus. The said allegation is clearly an attempt to implicate family members of the husband in matrimonial dispute inter-se between wife and husband. The present case offers another unfortunate example of wife resorting to over implication. The allegation against applicant Nos. 2 to 4 is absolutely meaningless and on the basis of such allegation it will not be just and proper to force them to face the criminal prosecution. The application deserves to be allowed with respect to applicant Nos. 2 to 4.

Criminal Law – Limitation for Registration of Offence – Section 468(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be read in isolation and that it has to be interpreted harmoniously with Sections 472 and 473 therein. The said provision although couched in the negative term which implies that it is mandatory, will have to be read in conjunction with Section 473 of the Cr.P.C. which enables a Court to take cognizance of offence beyond the prescribed period of limitation. The period can be extended under Section 473 on two grounds i.e. satisfactory explanation for the delay or in the interest of justice. Since the provision uses the term ‘or’, period can be extended even if one of the conditions is fulfilled. Therefore, a conjoint reading of Section 468 and 473 from the Code will indicate that although the limitation is prescribed for taking cognizance of certain offences, time can be extended in cases where either the delay is properly explained or when it is in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the matter despite the same being barred by limitation. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. is mandatory in nature in the sense that in case of delay, if proper explanation is not offered or the Court does not find that cognizance should be taken in the interest of justice despite the delay then cognizance of the offence beyond the prescribed period of limitation will be barred.

Result: Proceedings Partly allowed in part.