JUDGMENT :

Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Pankaj Saxena, learned Additional Government Advocate-I appearing for the State-opposite party.

2. The present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure[the Code] has been filed seeking to quash the charge sheet dated 31.12.2015 as well as summoning order dated 18.11.2020 passed by Special Judge S.C./S.T. Act, Jaunpur as well as entire proceedings of S.S.T. No. 284/2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 249/2015, under Section 323 , 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3 (1) 10 S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station Barsathi District Jaunpur.

3. A challenge is sought to be raised to the proceedings of S.S.T. No. 284/2020, arising out of Case Crime No. 249/2015, and also to the chargesheet dated 31.12.2015 as well as summoning order dated 18.11.2020, by raising a preliminary point and contending that the proceedings would be barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained under Section 468 CrPC.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that in the instant case, the incident in question is stated to have occurred on 13.05.2015 regarding which an FIR was lodged on the same day i.e. 13.05.2015, and after investigation the police report was submitted on 31.12.2015 whereupon cognizance was taken. However, since the order passed by the Magistrate summoning the applicant-accused is dated 18.11.2020, the bar under Section 468 would become operative and the proceedings would be barred by limitation.

5. In response to the aforesaid contention, learned Additional Government AdvocateI points out that the question as to what would be the relevant date for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC is no longer res integra. He has placed reliance upon the Constitution Bench judgment in the case of Sarah Mathew Vs. The Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Ors . (2014) 2 SCC 62, wherein noticing a conflict between a two Judge Bench decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale Vs. State of A.P. (2003) 8 SCC 559, which had been followed in another two Judge Bench decision in Japani Sahoo Vs. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty , (2007) 7 SCC 394 , and a three Judge Bench decision in Krishna Pillai Vs. T.A.Rajendran 1990 (Supp) SCC 121, the case was placed before a three Judge Bench for an authoritative pronouncement and thereafter it was referred to a five Judge Constitution Bench to examine the issue.

6. The questions which were considered by the Constitution Bench in the case of Sarah Mathew (supra) are as follows :

“3.1.(i) Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence? 3.2.(ii) Which of the two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai or Bharat Kale (which is followed in Japani Sahoo) lays down the correct law?”

7. Referring to the legislative history of Chapter XXXVI of the Code, it was observed as follows :

“19. To address the questions which arise in this reference, it is necessary to have a look at the legislative history of Chapter XXXVI CrPC. The Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 contained no general provision for limitation. Though under certain special laws like the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, the Police Act, 1861, The Factories Act, 1948 and the Army Act, 1950, there are provisions prescribing period of limitation for prosecution of offences, there was no general law of limitation for prosecution of other offences. The approach of this Court while dealing