Back
2026 Supreme(Mad) 1235
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
Sheik Alavudeen – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Madurai - Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.20263 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.(MD)Nos.12538 and 12539 of 2024
Decided On : 01-06-2026
For the Petitioners: Mr. T. Antony Arulraj.
For the Respondents:Mr. M. Sakthi Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl. side), Mr. D. Shanmugaraja Sethupathi.
A criminal court cannot mechanically take cognizance of a final report for offences punishable with up to three years' imprisonment after the expiry of the three-year limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C. without a reasoned order condoning the delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C.
Headnote:The case concerns the challenge to criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 323, 324, and 341 of the Indian Penal Code, arising from a matrimonial dispute. The court examined whether the invocation of criminal jurisdiction was appropriate given the lapse of time between the FIR and the filing of the final report. The Court determined that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate was legally unsustainable as it was barred by the limitation period stipulated under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly as no application for condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. had been filed or considered. The primary issues were whether the prosecution was barred by limitation and whether a prima facie case for the alleged offences existed. Relying on established jurisprudence, the court held that the bar of limitation is a mandatory statutory requirement and cannot be ignored by a Magistrate when taking cognizance. It reasoned that the failure to adhere to these statutory safeguards and the initiation of stale proceedings in a matrimonial context warranted intervention under the inherent powers of the court. The proceedings in C.C.No.1302 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, arising out of Crime No.1205 of 2019, are quashed in so far as the petitioners are concerned.
ORDER :
L. VICTORIA GOWRI, J.
The present Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking quashment of the proceedings in C.C.No.1302 of 2024 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai, arising out of Crime No.1205 of 2019 registered by the first respondent police for the alleged offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The petitioners stand arrayed as accused in the said calendar case. The second respondent/de facto complainant is the husband of the third petitioner. The first petitioner is the father-in- law, the second petitioner is the mother-in-law, and the fourth petitioner is stated to be the grandmother of the third petitioner. Thus, the substratum of the prosecution is embedded in a matrimonial dispute.
3. The principal ground urged before this Court is that the alleged occurrence is dated 09.10.2019, the FIR was registered on 10.10.2019, whereas the final report was filed only on 23.07.2024 and taken cognizance of on 26.07.2024, far beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is further contended that no petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. was filed seeking extension or condonation of delay, and that the learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance of the final report.
Case of the Prosecution:
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that due to a matrimonial dispute between the second respondent/husband and the third petitioner/wife, the third petitioner had allegedly left the matrimonial home and was residing with her parents.
5. According to the second respondent, on 09.10.2019, at about 7.00 p.m., he went to the residence of the petitioners. At that time, a quarrel is said to have arisen between him and the petitioners. During the course of the alleged quarrel, the petitioners are alleged to have wrongfully restrained him and caused injuries to him, including an injury near his left eye.
6. Based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent on 10.10.2019, the first respondent police registered Crime No.1205 of 2019 for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 341 IPC. After investigation, the final report was filed and the same was taken on file as C.C.No.1302 of 2024 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai.
Grounds for quash:
7. The petitioners seek quashment mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The prosecution is a counterblast to the matrimonial dispute between the third petitioner and the second respondent.
(ii) The second respondent/husband had allegedly harassed the third petitioner/wife by insisting that she should discontinue her Ph.D. studies and by demanding additional dowry.
(iii) The alleged occurrence is improbable, particularly as the fourth petitioner is an elderly woman.
(iv) The second respondent himself had gone to the residence of the petitioners, and therefore the offence of wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC is not made out.
(v) There is no sufficient medical material or wound certificate to sustain the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC.
(vi) The FIR was registered on 10.10.2019, whereas the final report was filed only in July 2024, after nearly five years.
(vii) Since the offences are punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years, cognizance taken beyond the period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is legally barred.
(viii) No application under Section 473 Cr.P.C. was filed to condone or explain the delay.
(ix) The learned Magistrate mechanically took cognizance without adverting to the statutory bar of limitation.
Arguments on either side:
8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the entire prosecution is nothing but an abuse of the process of law. The second respondent is the husband of the third petitioner and, owing to matrimonial discord, he has set the criminal law in motion not for vindication of justice, but for exerting pressure upon the wife and her family members.
9. It is submitted that the marriage between the second resp
