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

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 25593

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Thangaraja – Appellant
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
CRL.O.P(MD)No.6135 of 2026 | CRL.M.P(MD)No.6650 of 2026 | Crime No.52 of 2022



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.Jegadeesh Pandian
For the Respondents:Mr.B.Thanga Aravindh Govt.Advocate(Crl.side)

FIR quashed due to limitation under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. as offences attract max 2-year punishment and no charge sheet filed after 4 years.

Headnote:The petition was filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 to quash FIR in Crime No.52 of 2022 for offences under Sections 147, 447, 294(b), 323, 427, and 506(i) IPC. All offences carry maximum punishment of two years. FIR registered on 9.2.2022; no charge sheet filed after four years. Court found cognizance barred by limitation under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. for offences punishable up to three years. Issues framed around limitation under Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C. Ratio: Where maximum punishment does not exceed two years and FIR filed over three years prior without charge sheet, proceedings constitute abuse of process as cognizance is time-barred. FIR in Crime No.52 of 2022 quashed; Criminal Original Petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. petition to quash fir for ipc offences. (Para 1)
2. arguments on limitation and no charge-sheet. (Para 2 , 3)
3. offences attract 2-year max; cognizance barred. (Para 4)

O R D E R

The present Petition has been filed by the first accused in crime No.52 of 2022, on the file of first respondent-Police seeking to quash the FIR, wherein, the Petitioner is alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 147,447,294(b),323, 427 and

506(i) of IPC.

2.According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as far as the alleged offence in the FIR is concerned, maximum punishment to be imposed is only two years for the offence under Sections 147, 427 and 506(i) IPC. Though the FIR has been registered on 9.2.2022, charge-sheet has not yet been filed so far. The learned counsel relied on Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C and contended that the cognizance is barred by limitation and the investigating agency cannot file the charge sheet

3.The learned Government Advocate(Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent Police submitted that so far charge sheet has not yet been laid in the concerned FIR.

4.Considering the above facts, it is clear that Section 147 IPC attracts 2 years punishment, Section 447 IPC attracts three months punishment, section 294(b) IPC attracts six months punishment, Section 323 IPC attracts 1 year punishment, Section 427 IPC attracts 2 years punishment and section 506(i) IPC attracts 2 years punishment.Therefore, it is clear that all the offence levelled against the Petitioner attract maximum punishment of only for 2 years. Section 468(2)(c) of Cr.P.C., states that no Court can take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of three years of limitation period in case, where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years period, from the date of occurrence.

5.Admittedly, in the present case, FIR has been registered on

9.2.2022 and even after expiry of four years period, charge sheet has not been laid. In such circumstances, the continuation of criminal proceedings is an abuse of process of law and the FIR is liable to be quashed.

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