Back
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN
N. Ravichandran – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamilnadu, Represented by the Sub Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Coimbatore – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to call for the records and quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.239 of 2007 pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.)
1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the charge sheet in C.C.No.239 of 2007, pending on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur.
2. Brief facts of the case:
(i). On 22.04.2002, the first respondent police had registered a case against the petitioners in Crime No.2 of 2002, for the alleged offence under Sections 120(b), 406 and 109 of IPC and thereafter, on 11.04.2007, the first respondent has filed the charge sheet in C.C.No.239 of 2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Tiruppur, for the alleged offences committed by the petitioners.
(ii). As per the compliant, on 21.06.2000, A1/Srinivasan was sanctioned with a term loan of Rs.78 lakhs from the Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd. Out of the said amount, he had purchased Shed No.92 in THADCO Industrial Estate, Mudalipalayam and purchased a Mayer & Cie, Germany Make circular Knitting Machines, at a cost of Rs.109.56 Lakhs under
The main legal point established is that the filing of a charge sheet after the prescribed period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C is barred by law.
Cognizance of offences specified in an FIR is barred after the expiry of the period of limitation as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistra....
The period of limitation for taking cognizance of an offence is computed from the date of the offence until the date of filing the charge-sheet or complaint. Cognizance taken after the expiry of this....
For computing limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the relevant date is the filing of the complaint, not when the magistrate takes cognizance.
The limitation period for filing a final report in criminal cases is strictly enforced, and any delay must be properly explained and condoned by the court to maintain the validity of the proceedings.
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.
FIR quashed due to limitation under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. as offences attract max 2-year punishment and no charge sheet filed after 4 years.
Power under Section 473 of Cr.P.C to condone the delay was not exercised. The cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate overlooking the interdiction under Section 468 of Cr.P.C can under no circumst....
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
