FIRs that are not investigated and charge-sheeted within the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC are liable to be quashed.

Crl OP No.28032 of 2019

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 09.01.2023

CORAM:

The HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

Crl OP No.28032 of 2019

Vijayakumar

.. Petitioner

vs

1.The Inspector of Police,

Gudiyattam Town Police Station,

Gudiyattam, Vellore District.

2.S.Senthil Velan

.. Respondents

Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C to call for the entire

records pursuant to the FIR in Crime No.305 of 2013 on the file of the

1^st respondent dated 01.04.2013 and quash the same in so far as the

petitioner is concerned.

For Petitioner

:

Mr.B.Leninbalu

For Respondents

:

Mr.A.Gopinath

Government Advocate

(Criminal Side)

ORDER

1.

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the

1/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No.28032 of 2019

FIR pending investigation in Crime No.305 of 2013 on the file of the

first respondent / police dated 01.04.2013.

2.

The first respondent / police has registered FIR in Crime

No.305 of 2013 against the petitioner and others for the alleged

offences punishable under Sections 147,341, 294(b) and 506(i) IPC.

3.

It is seen that the FIR has been registered by the first

respondent / police on 01.04.2013 for the occurrence that took place

on 31.03.2013 as against the petitioner. The first respondent / police

did not complete the enquiry and filed a final report within the period

of limitation. Bar to take cognizance after the lapse of period of

limitation has been enunciated under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., which

reads as follows:-

“468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of

the period of limitation.

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in

this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of

an offence of the category specified in sub-

section (2), after the expiry of the period

of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be—

2/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No.28032 of 2019

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable

with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable

with imprisonment for a term not exceeding

one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable

with imprisonment for a term exceeding one

year but not exceeding three years.

3) For the purposes of this section, the

period of limitation, in relation to offences

which may be tried together, shall be

determined with reference to the offence

which is punishable with the more severe

punishment or, as the case may be, the most

severe punishment.”

4.

Thus, the maximum punishment for the offence

punishable under Section 506(i) IPC is two years imprisonment and

hence the first respondent / police ought to have filed the charge-

sheet on or before 31.03.2016. The limitation for taking cognizance is

three years from the date of registration of the FIR. Admittedly, the

first respondent / police did not conduct enquiry or file any charge-

sheet on or before 31.03.2016.

3/6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl OP No.28032 of 2019

5.

Further, it is also seen that the first accused by name

Moorthi has filed a copy application to obtain the charge sheet before

the learned Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham, Vellore District and the

same was returned on 30.10.2017 for the reason that the charge-

sheet has not yet been filed.

6.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that, the

co-accused viz., S.Moorthi, filed a quash petition in Crl.O.P.No.26713

of 2017 and the same was quashed vide order dated 16.04.2019.

Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the same be applied to

the petitioner as well.

7.

Considering the above facts and circumstances of the

case and the case is pending since 2013, no purpose will be served in

keeping the petition pending and to meet the ends of jsutice, this

Court is inclined to quash the FIR in Crime No.305 of 2013.

Accordingly, this Criminal Origina