Advocates Appeared:
For the Applicant : Satyendra Kumar Mishra.
For the Opposite Party : G.A.

Key Points: - The judgment discusses the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. for offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year, stating it is three years (!) (!) (!) - It holds that the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of the institution of prosecution, i.e., the date of filing of the FIR or registration of the complaint, not the date of cognizance by the Magistrate (!) (!) (!) (!) - It cites that if FIR is filed within time, cognizance taken later cannot render the proceedings time-barred; i.e., time-bar does not attach if prosecution is instituted within the period (!) (!) - The Amritlal/Sarah Mathew lineage clarifies that the date of institution of prosecution, not cognizance date, governs limitation; in State cases, FIR/date of registration is the relevant date (!) (!) (!) - The court eventually dismisses the application, finding no merit to challenge cognizance on limitation grounds since institution of prosecution was within time (!)

How to determine the period of limitation for taking cognizance under Section 468 Cr.P.C. in cases where the offence is punishable with imprisonment beyond one year?

What is the relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. when a FIR is registered after the date of the alleged offence?

What are the consequences if cognizance is taken after the expiry of the prescribed limitation period but the FIR was registered within time?