Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 33553
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J
Gandhirajan – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented By Sub Inspector of Police, Eriodu Police Station, Dindigul District. – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3605 of 2025 | Crl.M.P.(MD).Nos.2497 and 2498 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.K.Muthu Ganesa Pandian
For the Respondents:Mr.K.M.D.Muhilan Government Advocate (Crl.side)
An FIR filed beyond statutory limitation for non-cognizable offenses is invalid without prior magistrate approval.
Headnote:This Criminal Original Petition concerns the quashing of proceedings in STC No.198 of 2024. The FIR for offences under Sections 143 and 171(E) IPC was filed after the one-year limitation, as Section 468 of Cr.P.C. stipulates. The court determined the legality of the FIR registration without prior permission for non-cognizable offences, quashing the proceedings as unsustainable.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. quashing of the fir due to statutory limitations and procedural defects. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. discussion on unlawful assembly and non-cognizable offences requiring magistrate's permission. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. final ruling to quash proceedings based on the aforementioned legal findings. (Para 7) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in STC No.198 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Dindigul.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the first respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. It is seen that the FIR in Crime No.115 of 2021 has been registered on 03.04.2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 171(E) IPC and it is punishable for a period of one year or fine or both. The period of limitation for filing charge sheet is one year as contemplated under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. For Section 143 of IPC, it is punishable for a period of six months. However, the first respondent filed a final report only on 01.02.2024 viz., after a period of one year from the date of registration of FIR. Further though the date is stated in the charge sheet as 15.06.2023, it is also after a period of one year from the date of registration of FIR. Further, in order to attract the offence under Section 143 of IPC, there must be unlawful assembly as defined under Section 141 of IPC.
4. In order to attract the offence under Section 141 of IPC, the ingredient is that an assembly of five or more persons will become "unlawful assembly" when they have a common object and the said object falls within the categories mentioned under Section 141 of IPC. When the common object of the assembly does not fall within any categories as specified under Section 141 of IPC, even if the number of the assembly is more than five, the act alleged will not attract the offence of unlawful assembly. Thus, the essence of the offence of unlawful assembly lies in the consensus of purpose of more than five persons to commit an act specified in Section 141 of IPC.
5. Insofar as the offence under Section 171 E of IPC is concerned, it is a non cognizable offence. As soon as the complaint is received in respect of commission of non cognizable offence, the Station House Officer has to follow the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 155 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the Station House Officer shall obtain permission of the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate to register the crime.
6. In the case on hand, the first respondent, without obtaining any prior permission from the Judicial Magistrate, mechanically registered the FIR for the commission of non-cognizable offence.
7. In view of the above, the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the proceedings in STC No.198 of 2024 on the file of Judicial Magistrate-I, Dindigul, is hereby quashed.
8. In the result, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.
