COMMON ORDER

An important issue was raised in these petitions and hence the issue is being dealt with in common in these criminal original petitions. After answering the issue, the facts of each will be considered and separate orders will be passed in each petition.

2. The petition was filed in Crl.OP.No.433 of 2024, seeking transfer of investigation on the ground the police have not taken any steps to complete the investigation and file a final report even though specific directions in this regard have been issued by this Court earlier.

3. When the matter had come up on 12.01.2024, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor had submitted, on instructions, that the final report was filed before the Judicial Magistrate, Thittakudi. However, as the offence involved was punishable with imprisonment of two years, the final report ought to have been filed within the period prescribed under Section 468 Cr.PC. As the same was done only after four years, which is admittedly beyond the period of limitation, the Court below has not taken cognizance. Hence, notice has been issued to the accused in Crl.MP.No.1767 of 2023 as the Court wanted to exercise its power under Section 473 Cr.PC.

4. The attention of this Court was drawn to the decision of a learned single judge of this Court in Kishore v. State reported in (2023) 2 LW (Cri) 285, and a contention was raised that there was no requirement for condoning the delay since the complaint was lodged with the police within the period of limitation.

5. In Kishore v State reported in (2023) 2 LW (Cri) 285 an FIR was registered on 02.04.2018 for offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on the basis of information received on the same day from one Muthu Krishnan. As the victim subsequently succumbed, the case was altered to Section 279 & 304(A) IPC. A final report dated 30.06.2018 was filed before the Magistrate on 02.03.2023 along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.PC. The Magistrate allowed the application and took cognizance of the offences. The accused challenged the order passed under Section 473 Cr.PC condoning the delay before K. Murali Shankar, J. The learned judge after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew v Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 & Amritlal v ShantilalSoni, reported in (2022) 13 SCC 128 opined that relevant date for the purposes of Section 468 Cr.P.C is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution. Applying this test, the learned judge concluded as under:

“16. In the case on hand, as already pointed out, the accident was allegedly occurred on 02.04.2018 and the complaint came to be lodged on the same day i.e., on 02.04.2018. Hence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that since the complaint was lodged on the date of occurrence itself, the question of invoking Section 468 Cr.P.C. does not arise at all.”

6. In the previous hearing, this Court had, prima facie, expressed its reservations on the aforesaid observations as it appeared to have equated the information given to the police under Section 154 Cr.PC as being akin to a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code. As the matter required deliberation, this Court requested the assistance of the Bar to examine the issue threadbare.

7. Pursuant to the above order passed on 12.01.2024, two other petitions came up for hearing in Crl.OP.Nos.543 and 596 of 2024. The very same issue arises in these two petitions also. Therefore, those petitions were also tagged and heard together.

8. Heard Mr.R.Venkatesulu in Crl.OP.No.433 of 2024, Mr.Vijayaragavan in Crl.OP.No.543 of 2024, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.A.Damodaran, leanred Additional Public Prosecutor for R1 in both criminal original petitons. Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz and Mr.S.Thiruvengadam, learned counsels from the Bar, who rendered their assistance to this Court.

9. A general principle of criminal law is that a crime never dies. This is expressed in the