Final report filing beyond statutory limitation bars cognizance and quashing of proceedings is warranted.

O R D E R

This criminal original petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in STC.No.293 of 2024, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Chidambaram.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 04.04.2021, the petitioners and others, belonging to a political party, organised an election campaign procession without obtaining prior permission, in a manner causing disturbance to the public, thereby, violating the Election code. Consequently, a case in Crime No.378 of 2021 was registered by the 1^st respondent-police for the offences under Sections 143 & 188 of IPC and Sections 4AA1(a) and 4AA(4) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959. After completion of investigation, the final report came to be filed before the Judicial Magistrate II, Chidambaram for the aforesaid offences and the same was taken on file in STC.No.293 of

2024, which is now sought to be quashed.

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the maximum punishment prescribed for the abovesaid offences under Sections 143 & 188 of IPC is imprisonment which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both and for the offences under the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, the maximum punishment may extend to one year imprisonment. Hence, the investigation ought to have been completed and the final report should have been filed within a period of one year from the date of registration of the FIR ie., 04.04.2021, as mandated under Section 468 Cr.P.C. However, the final report came to be filed only on 12.02.2024. Therefore, there is a clear bar for taking cognizance if it is filed beyond one year. Hence, the continuation of the proceedings against the petitioners is an abuse of process of law and therefore, the same is liable to be quashed.

3.2 He further submitted that the facts of the instant case are similar to the facts of the cases in Jeevanandham and others vs. The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur District reported in (2018 2 LW (Crl) 606) and Sri Raja vs Inspector of Police, Sivakasi Town Police Station Virudhunagar District and others (Crl.O.P(MD) No.7922 of 2019, decided on 30.08.2019), in which the proceedings were quashed.

4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1^st respondent-police endorsed the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the facts of the instant case are akin to the facts in the aforesaid two cases and he fairly submitted that the final report was not filed within the limitation period.

5. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record.

6. That the case was registered on 04.04.2021 for the offences under Sections 143 & 188 of IPC and Sections 4AA1(a) and 4AA(4) of the Tamil Nadu Open Places (Prevention of Disfigurement) Act, 1959, that the maximum sentence for the aforesaid offences is one year and that the charge sheet therefor ought to have been filed within one year from the date of registration of the FIR as mandated under Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. are not in dispute. However, in the instant case, the final report has been filed only on 12.02.2024 and therefore, cognizance ought not to have been taken by the learned Magistrate.

7. Further, this Court is of the opinion that the above said decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners would apply on all fours to the present case and that no useful purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings in STC.No.293 of 2024, pending on the file of the Judicial Magistrate II, Chidambaram and the same is liable to be quashed.

8. Acco