The relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is the date of filing the FIR, not the date of cognizance, ensuring timely prosecution.

ORDER

This petition has been filed to quash the FIR in Cr.No.338 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent police.

2. The petitioners are accused in Crime No.338 of 2020 on the file of the respondent police. The petitioners are said to have abused the defacto complainant in filthy language and caused damages to the defacto complainant's property and also assaulted him and caused injuries. Hence, a case was registered in Crime No.338 of 2020 against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 324, 336 , 427 & 506(i) of IPC and the investigation is pending.

3. Pending the investigation, the petitioners have filed this petition to quash the proceedings on the ground that the investigation is not completed within the limitation period provided in the proviso under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C ., The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also supported the said plea by placing reliance on the order of this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.11363 of 2023 dated 26.06.2023.

4. The learned Additional Public prosecutor submitted that the plea of the petitioners to quash the FIR under Section 468 (2) of Cr.P.C ., is not legally maintainable when the allegations in the FIR clearly constitute the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 336 , 427 & 506(i) of IPC . He also relied upon the Judgements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases , reported in AIR 2014 SC 448 and this Court in Crl.OP(MD)No.17860 of 2024 and Crl.OP(MD)No.6077 of 2021. Therefore, he seeks for dismissal of this petition.

5. This Court considered the rival submissions and perused the impugned FIR and the precedents relied on either side.

6. There are allegations against the petitioners which constitute the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, 336 , 427 & 506(i) of IPC . The punishment for the said offences are as follows:-

7.1. This Court in Abiganesh Vs. Inspector of Police in Crl.OP(MD)No.17860 of 2024, has held as follows:-

“5. Let us take the plea of limitation first. This Court had an occasion to deal with similar plea of limitation in the case of Kishore Vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police, Reddiyarchatram Police Station in Crl.R.C.(MD)No.614 of 2023 dated 13.07.2023, wherein, FIR came to be registered for the offences under Sections 279 and 337 IPC on 02.04.2018 for the accident held on 02.04.2018 and subsequently, since the victim had died, the case was altered into Sections 279 and 304(A) , that the first respondent has filed the final report on 02.03.2023 along with an application to condone the delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C . and the learned Magistrate has passed an order condoning the delay in filing the final report and consequently taken the case on file and that when that order was challenged before this Court on the ground that charge sheet laid was clearly barred by limitation as contemplated under Section 468 Cr.P.C ., this Court, by following the judgment of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew Vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases by its Director Dr.K.M.Cherian and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 and subsequent Division Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Darshan Singh Saini Vs. Sohan Singh and others reported in (2015) 14 SCC 570 and in the case of Amritlal Vs. Shantilal Soni and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 248 to the point that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C ., the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence, has observed that since the accident was allegedly occurred on 02.04.2018 and a complaint came to be lodged on 02.04.2018, the date of occurrence its