Bar of limitation applies when charge sheet filed after prescribed period without condonation under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

PRAYER: This criminal original petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS to call for the records in crime No.42 of 2023 dated 27.01.2023 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai, the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

For Petitioner(s): Mr.J.Jayakumar For Respondent(s): Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, Addl.Public Prosecutor For R1

ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to call for the records in crime No.42 of 2023 dated 27.01.2023 pending on the file of the Inspector of Police, Madhavaram Police Station, Chennai, the 1^st respondent herein and quash the same.

2. The petitioner is arrayed as an accused for the alleged offences under Sections 427 of the Indian Penal Code. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that due to previous enmity, the petitioner/accused damaged the defacto complainant’s car Maruti Alto Car bearing Registration No. TN 18 J 9474 by scratching it with stones all around during midnight on 11.01.2023. Based on the complaint given by the defacto complainant, the present FIR came to be registered.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the first respondent registered the case without any materials evidence. Due to previous enmity, the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint against the petitioner.

4. The learned counsel would further contend that the alleged offence is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and therefore, in terms of Section 468 Cr.P.C., the final report ought to have been filed within a period of three years. However, no charge sheet has been filed within the prescribed period and no petition has been filed under Section 473 Cr.P.C. seeking condonation of delay. Hence, the continuation of proceedings is barred by limitation.

5. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that though the FIR was registered on 27.01.2023, the charge sheet has been e-filed only on 05.02.2026, after the filing of the present petition on 02.04.2026, and fairly conceded that no petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. has been filed.

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

7. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, reported in 1992 Supp (1) Scc 335, wherein illustrative categories have been laid down under which the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings. One such category is where the allegations made in the FIR, even if taken at face value, do not disclose the commission of any offence or where the proceedings are manifestly attended with mala fide or instituted with ulterior motive.

8. In the present case, this Court finds that the complaint is bereft of specific particulars and no material has been produced to substantiate the allegations. The accusation is general in nature and do not prima facie satisfy the ingredients of the offences alleged. Insofar as the issue of limitation is concerned, it is not in dispute that the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment up to two years and therefore the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is three years. Admittedly, the charge sheet has not been filed within the said period.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and ors reported in (2014) 2 SCC 62 has held that the relevant date for computing limitation is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution. However, i