Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
L.VICTORIA GOWRI
Sheik Alavudeen – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Inspector of Police, Sellur Police Station, Madurai – Respondent
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
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 ....
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....
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.
Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, combined with evidence of malafide intentions, can justify quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.
The limitation for prosecuting under Section 498-A IPC starts from the last act of cruelty, and vague allegations against in-laws do not justify prosecution.
The offence under Section 498-A IPC is a continuing offence, allowing limitation to commence from the last act of cruelty, and can be extended in the interest of justice.
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....
(1) Limitation – Prosecution cannot be nullified at the threshold on the ground of limitation and normally the matter should be left to the discretion of the learned trial Court to decide as to wheth....
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
