For computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the relevant date is the date of filing the complaint or initiating criminal proceedings, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes judicial cognizance of the offence.

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

Leave granted.

2. These two appeals arise out of common order dated 30.01.2025, passed by the High Court of Delhi in Crl. M.C. No. 1170 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 7270 of 2016. Thereby the High Court allowed the petition filed by Respondent No. 2-the accused, under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Signature Not Verified MINI Date: 2026.04.09 Reason:

1 2 Procedure, 1973 for quashing the First Information Report No. 121 of 2011.

2.1 The said FIR was in respect of the commission of offences under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 , at P.S. Moti Nagar, lodged by the appellant-complainant herein. The FIR came to be quashed on the ground that the charge-sheet was filed on 29.05.2012, which was after a period of one year and 20 days from the date of incident and therefore the bar of limitation under Section 468, Cr.PC, was attracted.

3. The incident, as per the FIR, took place on 09.05.2011, when the appellant, along with her brother and father, had gone to the court of the Special Executive Magistrate, Moti Nagar, in connection with a case filed under Section 107 read with Section 150, Cr.PC at the behest of the younger sister of the appellant. It was stated that when the parties stepped out of the gate of court premises, Respondent No. 2 - the accused named Ashutosh, who was

1 Hereinafter, “Cr.PC”.

Hereinafter, “FIR”.

Hereinafter, “IPC”.

an advocate appearing for Shweta-sister of the complainant, began abusing and beating the appellant.

3.1 The appellant suffered injuries on her head, right eye, cheek and shoulder. Respondent No. 2 alleged that he too was beaten by the appellant and her family. The incident resulted in the filing of two cross-FIRs. FIR No. 120 of 2011 came to be filed by the respondent against the appellant. On the same day, that is, on 09.05.2011, the complaint made by the appellant against Respondent No. 2 in the form of FIR No. 121 of 2011 was registered at the same P.S. Moti Nagar. 3.2 In FIR No. 121 of 2011, which is the subject matter here, the offences under Sections 323 and 341, IPC were alleged. The accused persons were arrested and released on bail. In respect of FIR No. 120 of 2011, the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet on 13.07.2011. The charge- sheet came to be filed on 29.05.2012 in respect of FIR No. 121 of 2011. Based on the said FIR No. 121 of 2011, the

Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Delhi , took

Hereinafter, “trial court”.

cognizance under Section 190(1)(b), Cr.PC for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 343 and 34 IPC.

3.3 While in respect of FIR No. 120 of 2011, the charges came to be framed against the appellant, her brother, and her father under Sections 323 and 343 read with Section 34, IPC, it appears that on 08.01.2014 and again on 22.09.2014, arguments were raised on behalf of respondent No.2-accused in respect of FIR No. 121 of 2011 inter alia that the cognizance of the offences was taken beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the accused was required to be discharged. The trial court did not accept the same, noting that the cognizance has attained finality and that the order was not challenged by either of the accused. The trial court further expressed itself that surprisingly, while the cross-FIR No. 120 of 2011 arising out of the same incident was charge-sheeted within limitation, the charge-sheet in respect of FIR No. 121 of 2011 was belatedly filed and that a party should not benefit from the negligence of the Investigating Officer.

3.4 Respondent No. 2 herein filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 36 of 2014 before the Court of District &