SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 57217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, J
R.Vigneshvaran – Appellant
Versus
The State Represented by The Inspector of Police C-5, Oragadam Police Station Kanchipuram District – Respondent
Crl.O.P.No.26136 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.V.Saravanan
For the Respondents:Mr.R.Vinothraja for R1 Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

The court reaffirmed that an FIR cannot be maintained if it is barred by the limitation period set forth in the CrPC for cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment up to six months.

Headnote:STATUTE ANALYSIS: The FIR is being challenged under Section 528 of BNSS, and Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C regarding the limitation for taking cognizance is referenced. FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioner seeks to quash the FIR in Crime No.246 of 2018, arguing that the FIR is time-barred due to the nature of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 337 of IPC, with a maximum punishment of six months, and no final report has been filed. FINDINGS OF COURT: The court noted that the final report was not filed within the stipulated limitation period and therefore, quashed the FIR as keeping it pending would serve no useful purpose. ISSUES: The primary question framed by the court highlights whether the FIR can be maintained due to the statutory limitation period. RATIO DECIDENDI: The court reasoned that since the offence is punishable with a maximum of six months, the final report should have been filed within one year, thereby confirming the applicability of Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. RESULT: The FIR in Crime No.246 of 2018 pending investigation is quashed, and the criminal original petition is allowed.

Table of Content
1. grounds for quashing fir based on limitation. (Para 1)
2. arguments regarding final report and limitation. (Para 2)
3. court observations on limitation period and fir status. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)

ORDER

The FIR in Cr.No.246 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC is sought to be quashed on the ground that Court cannot take cognisance since the FIR is of the year 2018 and the maximum punishment for the alleged offence is 6 months and further, final report is also not filed.

2.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) fairly submitted that final report is not filed and there is a bar for the Court to take cognisance under 468(2)(b) of CrPC on limitation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) and perused the materials placed on record.

4. The period of limitation, like a relay race, has a start and a finish point. Sections 467 states that the “period of limitation” is the period prescribed in Section 468 for taking cognizance of an offence. Clause (2) of Cr.P.C prescribes a graded period of limitation ranging from six months to three years for offences ranging from punishments of fine upto punishment for a period not exceeding three years

5. The offence under Section 279 of IPC is punishable with maximum imprisonment of six months. The offence under Section 337 of IPC is also punishable with maximum imprisonment of six months. In view of the same, the final report ought to have been filed within one year as provided under Section 468 (2)(b) of Cr.PC. Till date, the final report has not been filed. Considering the allegations made in the FIR, no useful purpose will be served in keeping the FIR pending.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top