The relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the complaint, not when cognizance is taken, as established in this case regarding the quashing of charges under Section 285 IPC.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.56902/2019, registered for offence punishable under Section 285 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act , 1964.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel Sri.Sandesh J. Chouta, appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. The subject building is said to have been constructed in terms of the sanction plan and a completion certificate is also in place on 27.12.2005. It is a commercial complex. In a public interest petition before the Division Bench in W.P.No.38073/2010, a general direction was issued to the fire department to put in place preventive measures for high rise buildings by issuance of a notification under Section 13 of the Karnataka Fire (Services) Force Act, 1964. Long thereafter, the first petitioner purchases the commercial complex on 05.02.2014 and in terms of the revised master plan, certain safety measures were taken in compliance with the Act, is the averment in the petition. The Fire Department is said to have inspected the premises on three dates. On 31.12.2017, 05.01.2018 and the last, on 31.01.2018. Later, on 02.04.2019, the Department registers the complaint before the jurisdictional police for offence punishable under Sections 285 and 336 of the IPC. The said registration of the crime was called in question before this Court in Crl.P.No.4604/2019. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court had granted an interim order of stay of all further proceedings on 09.09.2019. Long thereafter, on 11.10.2019, the Police filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court and the concerned Court registers the same as C.C.No.56902/2019. Summons was issued to the petitioners on 06.10.2023. It is then they realize that despite the subsistence of the interim order, a charge sheet was filed by the Police. The said petition was withdrawn and the present petition was filed before the Court, after securing such liberty from the hands of this Court.

4. The learned Senior counsel would submit that for an offence punishable under Section 285 of the IPC, the maximum punishment is imprisonment upto six months or fine or both. In terms of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C., and even the Act, the limitation for filing the complaint is one year from the date of occurrence of the cause of action. He would contend that the last of inspection, was the cause of action. This was on 31.01.2018. The complaint comes to be registered on 02.04.2019, which is admittedly beyond one year, and beyond the limitation stipulated under the Act, as also the Bar under Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. The learned Senior counsel would further contend that none of the ingredients of Section 285 of the I.P.C., is met at the case at hand. He would submit that the issue of limitation in registering the complaint would cut at the root of the matter and therefore would submit that on these grounds, the petition should be allowed.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.Jagadeesha B.N., would submit that last of the references in the complaint is on 02.04.2019. The complaint is preferred on 09.04.2018. He would therefore submit that it is within the period of limitation as prescribed under the Act and Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. He would contend that the first petitioner had not installed any safety equipment in the building. Therefore, it led to registration of the complaint. He would seek to place reliance upon the judgment of the c