Limitations on criminal complaints under IPC and Cr.PC govern the quashing of proceedings when filed beyond stipulated time frames.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR SATURDAY, THE 31^ST DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 11TH MAGHA, 1947 WP(C) NO. 37940 OF 2018 C.C NO.1381 OF 2016 ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, THALASSERY.

PETITIONER:

KOLAPRATH MANOHARAN., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O.DEVIKA, AANANDOTH HOUSE, CHAVASSERY, P.O.EDAYANNUR, KANAD, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENTS:

1 STATE OF KERALA., REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.

2 KOLAPRATH KAMALAKSHI, MANAKKAL HOUSE, THALAMUNDA, P.O.KOODALI, KANNUR DISTRICT.

BY ADVS.

SRI.P.SASI SRI.K.A.BENNY (B-865)

SRI. BREEZ.M.S (SR. GP)

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON

31.01.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

J U D G M E N T

(Dated this the 31st day of January, 2026)

The petitioner is the accused in C.C No.1381 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery. He filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing all the proceedings initiated against him.

2. The above case is registered on the basis of a private complaint filed by the 2nd respondent alleging various offences punishable under the IPC with respect to an incident that occurred on 21.11.2010 at about 7.30 a.m. Ext.P1 is the said complaint which has been filed on 20.01.2015. The learned Magistrate as per Ext.P7 order took cognizance of the offence under Sections 324 and 506(i) of , holding that the evidence on record prima facie makes out the offences under the above provisions.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the punishment provided for the offence under Section 324 IPC is only imprisonment for 3 years and fine, the period of limitation for taking cognizance of the said offence as per Section 468 (2)(c) Cr.PC is 3 years. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, Ext.P1 complaint filed on 20.01.2015 with respect to the incident that occurred on 21.11.2010 is barred by limitation.

4. Though notice was served on the de facto complainant/2^nd respondent, she did not turn up.

5. The learned Public Prosecutor also fairly conceded that, with respect to the incident that occurred on 21.11.2010, the complaint filed on 20.01.2015 is beyond the period of limitation.

6. It appears that in Ext.P7 order, the learned Magistrate has not considered the question of limitation. There is also no evidence to show that the de facto complainant had filed any application under Section 470 Cr.PC for extension of the period of limitation.

7. In the above circumstances, Ext.P7 order taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 324 and 506 IPC with respect to the incident on 21.11.2010 is hopelessly barred by limitation and, as such, the same is liable to be quashed.

In the result, this W.P(C) is allowed. Annexure-P7 order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Thalassery, is set aside and all further proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P1 complaint is quashed.

Sd/-