Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.VELMURUGAN
Ruban, S/o Subbaiyan – Appellant
Versus
State, rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police -Respondent
Crl.R.C.Nos.2040, 1862 and 1864 of 2023 and Crl.M.P.Nos.18847, 17478 and 17480 of 2023
Decided on : 22-04-2025
The legal document emphasizes that for the purpose of computing the limitation period under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), the relevant date is the date of filing the complaint, not the date when the court takes cognizance of the charge-sheet (!) (!) (!) (!) . The court clarifies that the limitation period starts from the date the complainant becomes aware of the offence or the date of commission of the offence, whichever is earlier, and not from the date of cognizance by the magistrate (!) (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the order states that the filing of the complaint within the limitation period is sufficient to keep the case valid, even if the charge-sheet is filed later or taken on record after the limitation period has expired (!) (!) . The court also highlights that the limitation is a question of fact and that the delay in taking cognizance by the court does not invalidate a timely complaint (!) .
The document underscores that the primary consideration at the stage of discharge or quashing petitions is whether prima facie materials exist to proceed with the case, rather than whether the case is barred by limitation (!) (!) . The court notes that the materials on record, such as the complaint and charge-sheet, demonstrate sufficient grounds to proceed, and the limitation issue is a matter to be addressed during the trial (!) (!) .
Additionally, the court discusses the importance of the date of filing the complaint, emphasizing that it is the relevant date for limitation calculations, and that the court should not consider delays caused by the court’s inaction in taking cognizance (!) (!) (!) . It also clarifies that the limitation period is intended to prevent undue delay and that the law favors the prosecution of cases where the complaint was filed timely (!) (!) .
In conclusion, the court dismisses the revision petitions, affirming that the cases were filed within the permissible limitation period based on the date of knowledge and filing of the complaint, and that the question of limitation is a factual matter to be decided during trial. The procedural law supports that the limitation period is to be calculated from the date of complaint filing, not from the date when the court takes cognizance.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of criminal cases against petitioners (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments on limitation of filing charge-sheets (Para 8 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. observations regarding limitation laws and quashing petitions (Para 10 , 15 , 22 , 30) |
| 4. factors validating complaint filing under limitation. (Para 31 , 39) |
| 5. ratio on computation of limitation period (Para 34 , 36 , 48) |
| 6. final dismissal of petitions due to absence of merit. (Para 46) |
| 7. final dismissal of revision petitions (Para 49) |
COMMON ORDER
The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.2040 of 2023 is A2 in C.C.No.523 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur.
2. The revision petitioners in Crl.R.C.No.1862 of 2023 are A2, A3 and A4 in C.C.No.529 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur.
3. The revision petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.1864 of 2023 is A3 in C.C.No.523 of 2019 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur.
4. The respondent-Police registered the above case against the petitioners herein for the offence under Sections 406 and 424 of IPC in the respective crime numbers.
5. After investigation, the Police laid the charge-sheet before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur, which were taken on file in C.C.Nos.523 and 529 of 2019 in Crime Nos.11 and 12 of 2001.
6. The revision petitioners have filed Crl.M.P.Nos.1379 of 2019, 6473 of 2022 and 492 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur.
7. The said Crl.M.Ps. were filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C., praying to discharge the accused from the cases and the said Crl.M.Ps. were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur, after hearing both sides, against which, the respective revision petitioners are before this Court under these Criminal Revision Petitions.
8. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners contended that the cases are barred by limitation. Though the cases were registered for the above said offences in the year 2001 itself, subsequently, the respondent- Police, after investigation, filed charge-sheet in the respective cases which is barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
9. Further, A3 (K.Ravichandran), A4 (Ramnath) and A6 (A.Marimuthu), have earlier filed Crl.O.P.No.7425 of 2016 before this Court to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.193 of 2007, which was pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur, The said Crl.O.P. was disposed of on 29.04.2016 by quashing C.C.No.193 of 2007 not only against the said three accused persons, but against all the accused.
10. Further, the said A.Marimuthu and S.Ruban, respectively, have filed Crl.O.P.Nos.12128 of 2016 and 19471 of 2014 before this Court to quash C.C.No.174 of 2007 pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur. The said Crl.O.Ps. were dismissed on 29.06.2016 with a direction to the trial Court to determine the date on which the final report was presented and if there is delay, it is open to the learned Magistrate to consider the same under Section 473 Cr.P.C., bearing in mind the law laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director, Dr.KM.Cherian and others , reported in 2014 (2) SCC 62 .
11. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners further contended that again, the said accused persons, i.e. A2 (N.Ravichandran), A3 (Ramnath) and A5 (A.Marimuthu) filed Crl.O.P.No.7426 of 2016 to quash the charge-sheet in C.C.No.192 of 2007, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Tiruppur. The said Crl.O.P. was dismissed by this Court on 07.08.2018.
12. Learned counsel for the revision petitioners further submitted that A2 (N.Ravichandran), A3 (Ramnath) and A4 (A.Marimuthu) filed Crl.O.P.No.9443 of 2016 before this Court and the same was allowed by this Court on 23.06.2022, quashing C.C.No.239 of 2007 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.2, Thiruppur.
13. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners have
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 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....
Cognizance of offence – Limitation - For computing the limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. the relevant date is the date of filing complaint or the institution of prosecution and not the date on whi....
For computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant date is the date of filing the complaint or initiating criminal proceedings, and not the....
(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) Administrat....
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.
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
