Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA, J.
Amalraj – Petitioner
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station – Respondent
Crl. O.P. (MD) No. 12141 of 2021, Crl. M.P. (MD) Nos. 6230, 6231 of 2021
Decided On : 07-02-2024
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE - LIMITATION PERIOD - The court addressed the issue of the limitation period for filing a final report under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., emphasizing that the relevant date for computing the limitation is the date of the occurrence of the offence. The court found that the final report was filed beyond the permissible period and that the Judicial Magistrate failed to condone the delay as required under Section 473. Consequently, the court set aside the cognizance taken by the Magistrate but allowed the police to seek condonation of delay, thereby influencing the procedural adherence in criminal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought to quash a final report filed by the police in a case involving alleged offences under Sections 147, 294(b), and 506(1) of IPC, arguing that the report was filed beyond the limitation period as prescribed by Section 468 of Cr.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the final report was indeed filed beyond the three-year limitation period from the date of occurrence (08.07.2016) and that the Judicial Magistrate did not condone this delay as required by law.
Issues: Whether the final report filed by the police was within the limitation period as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., and whether the Judicial Magistrate's cognizance of the offence was valid without condoning the delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that the limitation period for filing a final report is calculated from the date of occurrence of the offence, and the Magistrate must condone any delay in filing the report as per Section 473 of Cr.P.C. The failure to do so rendered the cognizance taken by the Magistrate erroneous.
Final Decision: The court set aside the cognizance taken by the Judicial Magistrate but remitted the matter back for the police to file a petition under Section 473 to condone the delay, directing the Magistrate to decide on the merits of that petition.
ORDER :
Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records pertaining to S.T.C. No. 643 of 2020 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No. II, Virudhunagar and quash the same as against the petitioners.
1. Seeking to quash the final report filed by the police before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Virudhunagar in S.T.C. No. 643 of 2020, the present Criminal Original Petition is filed.
2. The second respondent/de facto complainant lodged a complaint with the Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar East Police Station against the present petitioners and others for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 147, 294(b), 506(1) of IPC and same was registered as F.I.R. in Crime No. 320 of 2016 of Virudhunagar East Police Station. The petitioners are accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. After completing the investigation, the police filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate Court No. II, Virudhunagar in S.T.C. No. 643 of 2020.
3. Mr. R. Pon Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the petitioners/accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 would contend that though the date of occurrence is 08.07.2016, the police had filed the final report only on 16.09.2020 and that the maximum imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 506(1) of IPC is 2 years and the police have not filed the final report within the period of limitation as envisaged under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. He would further contend that the learned Judicial Magistrate had also not condoned the delay in filing the final report and therefore, the entire final report has to be quashed.
4. It is true that the final report has been filed beyond the period of limitation. The learned Judicial Magistrate has taken cognizance of offence without directing the police to file a petition under Section 473 of Cr.P.C. seeking to condone the delay in filing the final report. It is appropriate to extract hereunder Sections 468 & 473 of Cr.P.C.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be:
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only.
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation, in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.
.............
473. Extension of period of limitation in certain cases - Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.
5. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular, 2014 (1) SCC 721 : AIR 2014 SC 448, had ruled that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of offence.
6. In the instant case, the date of occurrence is 08.07.2016 and the period of limitation is computed from the said date. The final report should have been filed on or before 07.07.2019 i.e. within a period of three years from the date of occurrence. The learned Judicial Magistrate while taking cognizance of offence had not suo motu condoned th
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 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....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C and the exercise of power under Section 473 ....
Cognizance of offenses under IPC taken after the limitation period is invalid without proper justification from the prosecution.
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
