Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 78043
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SUNDER MOHAN, J
A.Maharajan – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Nalattinpudur Police Station – Respondent
Crl.O.P.(MD) No.274 of 2024 | Crl.M.P(MD) No.203 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Veerapandi.S.P
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Sanjai Gandhi
An FIR may be quashed when the limitation period for cognizance has lapsed due to inaction in filing a final report on minor offences.
Headnote:This case involves a Criminal Original Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash an FIR in Crime No.123 of 2023. The petitioner argued the FIR was filed after the limitation period under Section 468 Cr.P.C., while the State maintained that the investigation was ongoing. The court emphasized that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences does not exceed six months, rendering the FIR untenable after two years without a final report. The court therefore quashed the FIR, citing inaction on the part of the prosecution.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner challenges fir on grounds of delay. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding fir's validity. (Para 4) |
| 3. courts analysis of allegations and penalties. (Para 5) |
| 4. court finds fir liable for quashing due to limitation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the First Information Report registered in Crime No.123 of 2023 on the file of the first respondent Police Station under Sections 336 , 296 and 283 IPC .
2. The allegation in the FIR is that the petitioner, along with three others, drove four cars in a rash and negligent manner on a public road, thereby causing panic and endangering the safety of the general public.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was not originally named in the FIR; that in any event, the FIR was registered on 13.07.2023 and even as on date, no final report has been filed by the first respondent. He would further contend that, in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., cognizance of the alleged offences is barred by limitation and hence, the FIR is liable to be quashed.
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would submit that the investigation has been conducted and the final report would be filed soon. It is further submitted that no valid grounds have been made out by the petitioner for quashing the FIR and therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. A reading of the FIR shows that it was registered on the complaint of the Sub-Inspector of Police, alleging that four cars were driven in a rash and negligent manner on a public road, thereby endangering the safety of the general public. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has now been added as an accused and that the final report has not yet been filed.
6. The offences alleged against the petitioner as stated earlier are under Sections 279 , 336, 290 and 283 IPC . The maximum punishment prescribed for the said offences are as follows:
Serial No. Section
Punishment
1
Section 279 IPC
Six months with fine
2
Section 336
Three months or fine upto Rs.250/-
3
Section 290
Fine of Rs.200/-
4
Section 289
Upto Six months or Fine upto Rs.100/-
7. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) would fairly submit that apart from the offences mentioned in the FIR, no other offence has been made out against the petitioner and there is no justifiable ground for the delay.
8. Thus, the maximum punishment that can be imposed on the petitioner is six months. Under Section 468 Cr.P.C., for offences punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year, the period of limitation prescribed for taking cognizance is one year. Since the FIR was registered on 13.07.2023 and even after more than two years, no final report has been filed, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping the FIR pending for further investigation.
