A criminal complaint and subsequent charge sheet filed beyond the prescribed statutory limitation period without an order condoning the delay, coupled with insufficient evidence of the alleged criminal acts, renders the prosecution liable to be quashed.

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.S.Iyyappan For Respondent(s): Mr. LEONARD ARUL JOSEPH SELVAM ADDITIONAL PP ORDER The petitioner/accused in Crime No.136 of 2025 for the offence under Sections 292, 293, 126(2) and 189(2) of BNS filed this quash petition. 2.The case of the prosecution is that on 08.03.2025 at about 5.00 p.m., the respondent police were on patrol duty, at that time, they found the petitioners, in support of persons who were arrested in Dindingul with regard to dispute in worship in Abiramiamman Temple, Dindingul, squatted on the road, obstructed traffic and caused disturbance to the general public.

Despite warnings issued by the police, they allegedly failed to disperse. Hence, case registered against the petitioners for holding demonstration without police permission.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that FIR in the present case registered on 08.03.2025. One year thereafter to, charge sheet not filed and hence, filed the quash petition. The petitioners earlier filed quash petition before this Court in Crl.O.P.No.2769 of 2026, at that time, the respondent police informed that final report filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruttani through e-filing on 18.03.2025 and recording the same the petition was closed. Thereafter, the petitioners filed a copy application in C.A.No.115 of 2026 and the same was returned by the Magistrate on 24.02.2026 recording that charge sheet not filed in Crime No.136 of 2025. Hence, on the merits of the case and on the point of limitation filed the present quash petition.

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the petitioners caused disturbance to the public and obstructed the free flow of traffic in the temple town in Tiruttani. Hence case registered in Crime No.136 of 2025. On completion of investigation, final report filed on 18.03.2025 through e-filing in LTN20220001472C202500190 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruttani. According to the prosecution, the Court neither returned the papers nor issued any memo for compliance. He further submitted that in the charge sheet witnesses clearly stated about the overt act of the petitioners.

5.Considering the submissions made and on perusal of the materials, it is seen that the occurrence is said to have taken place on 18.03.2025 and on the same day, FIR registered. Charge sheet for the offence charged ought to have been filed within a period of one year. Even according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, charge sheet filed only on 18.03.2025 which is beyond the prescribed period of limitation and no petition filed giving reason for the delay and the same has not been condoned. Hence, there is a bar under Section 514 of BNSS. Further, no order obtained under Section 519 of BNSS.

6.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Others 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, in cases where the final report is filed beyond the prescribed period, the Court cannot take cognizance unless the delay is condoned under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

7.Added to it, on the factual aspect it is seen that the petitioner had merely participated in a protest expressing solidarity with persons arrested in connection with a temple issue at Dindigul. In this case, no public lodged a complaint and there is nothing to show that there is obstruction of traffic, disturbance to the public or intimidation. Thus, considering the complaint as a whole, it is seen no offence made out. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to quash the FIR.

8.Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands allow