The limitation period for taking cognizance of an offence is tolled for the duration the accused is absconding, allowing prosecution to proceed even after significant delays.

JUDGMENT :

CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J.

1. This Special Criminal Application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India and under Section-482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed to quash the FIR in Crime Register No.I-143 of 2010 registered with Anand Town Police Station, Anand and to set aside the order dated 06.01.2024, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner to discharge her from the Criminal Case No.1025 of 2014 on the file of 3^rd Additional Civil Judge, Anand, was dismissed.

2. Heard Mr. I.H. Syed, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Hardik Soni, learned APP for the respondent – State.

3. Facts of the prosecution case lie in a narrow compass and may be stated as follows:-

3.1 The deceased Sanjeev Patel is the husband of the petitioner herein by name Diptiben. On 08.08.2006, Sanjeev Patel met with a car accident. He succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. However, no report was lodged with the police immediately after the accident. The de facto complainant is the friend of the deceased. He has attended the funeral ceremony of the deceased. As the factum of accident is not informed to the police, no case was registered in connection with the said accident immediately after the incident.

3.2 Subsequently, in the year 2009 i.e. on 22.02.2009, the de facto – complainant who is the friend of the deceased sent a report to the Superintendent of Police informing him about the factum of accident stating that the petitioner herein, who is the wife of the deceased dashed him with the car at their house and that the deceased sustained injuries in the said accident and succumbed to the same. The Superintendent of Police ordered for inquiry on the said report. After conducting preliminary inquiry, police registered the FIR against the petitioner herein on 28.04.2010 and investigated the crime. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed by the police on 24.03.2014 against the petitioner in the trial court. The trial court has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner on the next date i.e. 25.03.2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 304A, 279 and 176 of IPC and under Sections 177 and 184 of the MV Act.

3.3 The petitioner has filed a petition for discharge in the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the said petition on the ground that as the offence is triable as a summons case, as there is no requirement of framing a charge that the question of discharge does not arise.

3.4 The petitioner has filed the said discharge petition before the trial Court on the ground that taking cognizance of offence is barred by time under Section-465 of Cr.P.C.

3.5 Aggrieved thereby, and also questioning the order of the trial Court in taking cognizance of the offence, which was barred by time, the present application has been filed to quash the criminal prosecution launched against the petitioner.

4. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the offence took place long back on 08.08.2006 and the FIR was registered 04 years thereafter on 28.04.2010 and the charge-sheet was filed after completion of investigation on 24.03.2014 after 04 years from the date of registration of FIR and the Court has taken cognizance of the offence on 25.04.2014 after lapse of 04 years period from the date of registration of the FIR and as such, the cognizance of the offence was taken against the petitioner by the trial Court after the expiry of period of limitation. According to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, section-468 of Cr.P.C. mandates that the Court shall not take cog