Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Section 468 Cr.P.C. - Limitation for Cognizance Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) sets the time limit within which a court can take cognizance of an offence. Generally, it prescribes a limitation period of three years for filing chargesheets and initiating proceedings, depending on the nature of the offence. For example, for offences punishable with up to one year of imprisonment, the limitation period is one year, and for other offences, it can be three years or more ["Tekchand Sharma VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - Gauhati"], ["State NCT of Delhi VS Pargun & Anr - Delhi"], ["Dinesh Prasad Sinha VS State of Bihar - Patna"], ["Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Ramesh Kilaaniya VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Application and Interpretation Courts have held that if proceedings or chargesheets are filed beyond the period specified in Section 468, they are barred by limitation and thus not maintainable. For instance, if an offence is alleged to have occurred in 2009, and cognizance is taken in 2015, the case may be barred by limitation ["Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - Gauhati"], ["Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Ramesh Kilaaniya VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
Exceptions and Nuances Some judgments clarify that mere issuance of notices or preliminary steps without passing a cognizance order may not attract the limitation period under Section 468. For example, if only a notice is issued but no order of cognizance is passed, the limitation may not apply ["Dinesh Prasad Sinha VS State of Bihar - Patna"].
Legal Challenges Based on Limitation Several cases involve petitions to quash FIRs or proceedings on the grounds that they are barred by limitation under Section 468. Courts have quashed proceedings when the chargesheet was filed after the expiry of the limitation period ["Tekchand Sharma VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - Gauhati"].
Related Sections and Considerations Sections 200 and 473 Cr.P.C. are also relevant in the context of initiating proceedings and exceptions to limitation. Some judgments emphasize that the limitation period is a bar to cognizance, not necessarily to the filing of a complaint or investigation ["Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - Gauhati"], ["IND_Delhi_WP(CRL)-2616_2022"].
Analysis and ConclusionSection 468 Cr.P.C. plays a crucial role in safeguarding the accused from indefinite threats of prosecution by imposing time limits on initiating criminal proceedings. Courts have consistently held that proceedings initiated beyond this period are liable to be dismissed or quashed, unless specific exceptions apply. Proper understanding of the limitation period is essential for both prosecution and defense to ensure that criminal proceedings are initiated within the prescribed time frame ["Tekchand Sharma VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - Gauhati"], ["Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Ramesh Kilaaniya VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan"].
References:- Tekchand Sharma VS State of Haryana - Punjab and Haryana- Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - Gauhati- Ruban, S/o Subbaiyan vs State, rep. by The Sub-Inspector of Police - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2412- State NCT of Delhi VS Pargun & Anr - Delhi- Dinesh Prasad Sinha VS State of Bihar - Patna- Chandrashekhar S/o Shri Ramesh Kilaaniya VS State of Rajasthan - Rajasthan- IND_Delhi_WP(CRL)-2616_2022_HC_PHHC010684342015- VIKAS PARAS @ ASHISH JAISWAL vs STATE NCT OF DELHI THROUGH SHO - 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 6464- IND_Delhi_WP(CRL)-2616_2022_Delhi_WP(CRL)-2616_2022- IND_Delhi_WP(CRL)-2616_2022_Delhi_2022_DHC_005065
In the realm of criminal law in India, time plays a crucial role in the initiation of proceedings. A common query from legal enthusiasts and practitioners alike is Sec 100 of Crpc Citation, which often points to inquiries about key provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). However, delving deeper reveals frequent overlaps with Section 468 CrPC, which addresses the critical bar to taking cognizance of certain offences after the lapse of a prescribed limitation period. This blog post provides a comprehensive guide to Section 468 CrPC, its application, exceptions, and judicial interpretations, drawing from established case law and statutory provisions.
Whether you're a lawyer, accused party, or complainant, grasping these timelines can prevent procedural lapses. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your case.
Section 468 CrPC, titled Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation, lays down that no court shall take cognizance of certain offences after the expiry of specified periods. Specifically:
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- 468. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Saregama India Ltd. VS State NCT of Delhi - 2014 Supreme(Del) 281
This provision applies generally to non-serious offences where the maximum punishment is less than three years, ensuring vigilant prosecution. Importantly, the limitation does not apply if the punishment exceeds three years, as seen in cases under statutes like the Income Tax Act. State of Maharashtra VS Ramesh - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1439Union of India VS GUPTA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI - 2006 Supreme(Bom) 2000
The provisions of section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code do not apply when the punishment prescribed under the Act is beyond three years. Union of India VS GUPTA BUILDERS PVT. LTD. , MUMBAI - 2006 Supreme(Bom) 2000
The clock typically starts from the date of the offence or the date of discovery, whichever is later. For instance, in hidden offences like fraud or drugs, it begins from the date of knowledge or report. State Of Rajasthan VS Sanjay Kumar - 1998 4 Supreme 435
Courts have clarified: The relevant date for computing the period of limitation under Section 468 is the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution. State of Maharashtra VS Ramesh - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1439 Not the date of taking cognizance by the magistrate—this nuance saved proceedings in a case involving a public servant accused under IPC Section 509, where the chargesheet filing date was pivotal. State of Maharashtra VS Ramesh - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1439
A significant carve-out exists for continuing offences, where the limitation resets with each moment of continuance. For continuing offences, such as offences under certain statutes, the limitation does not apply or is extended, as a new limitation period may run at every moment during the continuation. Suman Gopaliya & Sons, through (partner) Naresh Kumar Gopaliya S/o Shri Ramavtar Gopaliya VS Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vishistha Shreni Alwar, naveen Mandi, Yard, Alwar through its Secretary Shri Yadunath Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 444
This principle exempts such cases from Section 468's strict bar during the offence's duration, promoting justice in ongoing violations. Suman Gopaliya & Sons, through (partner) Naresh Kumar Gopaliya S/o Shri Ramavtar Gopaliya VS Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti Vishistha Shreni Alwar, naveen Mandi, Yard, Alwar through its Secretary Shri Yadunath Singh - 2017 0 Supreme(Raj) 444
Even if time-barred, courts may condone delay under Section 473 CrPC if satisfactorily explained and in the interest of justice. However, this discretionary power demands a speaking order—a reasoned decision outlining why delay was condoned.
The Court’s power to condone delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C. is discretionary and must be exercised with a speaking order, indicating that the delay has been properly explained and condoned in the interest of justice. State Of H. P. VS Tara Dutt - 1999 9 Supreme 421
Failure to provide such an order renders proceedings quashable. In a case under the Standard of Weights and Measures Act, the complaint was dismissed as time-barred without proper condonation: The court emphasized that the discretion to extend the period of limitation must be exercised judicially and on well-recognized principles. Saregama India Ltd. VS State NCT of Delhi - 2014 Supreme(Del) 281
When cognizance is taken beyond the limitation period without proper condonation, the proceedings are liable to be quashed. Sunil Kumar @ Sunil Kumar Kandhway Son Of Shree Vishwanath Prasad VS State Of Bihar - 2011 0 Supreme(Pat) 615HARlSHANKAR VS STATE OF M. P. - 2008 0 Supreme(Chh) 95
Crucially, the bar checks the offence charged, not what is ultimately proved at trial. Even if a graver charge fails and a lesser one sticks, the initial charge's limitation governs. State Of H. P. VS Tara Dutt - 1999 9 Supreme 421
This was affirmed: The limitation applies to the offence charged, not necessarily to the offence finally proved in trial. State Of H. P. VS Tara Dutt - 1999 9 Supreme 421
Indian courts have shaped Section 468's application through precedents:
In one revision, proceedings under Section 258 CrPC were halted due to Section 468 bar. State of Maharashtra VS Ramesh - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1439
To navigate these provisions effectively:- Examine Dates Diligently: Pinpoint offence/discovery/filing dates early.- Seek Speaking Orders: For condonation, ensure courts record detailed reasons.- Raise Objections Promptly: Accused should challenge time-barred cognizance via Section 482 CrPC petitions.- Vigilance for Complainants: File within limits or justify delays.
Parties in cases like cheating (IPC 420,468,471) or society misappropriation must heed jurisdiction and limitation, as Delhi courts affirmed in ongoing probes. NEPAL SINGH VS STATE, NCT OF DELHI - 2016 Supreme(Del) 285
In summary, Section 468 CrPC balances expeditious justice with fairness, preventing stale claims while allowing exceptions. Courts must apply it judiciously, as improper cognizance invites quashing. Stay informed, but always seek professional legal counsel for case-specific strategies.
This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
#CrPC468, #LimitationPeriod, #CriminalLaw
Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. provides limitation for taking cognizance of the offence. Section 468 Cr.P.C., is reproduced herein for the ready reference:- 468. ... of the Cr.P.C. ... of Cr.P.C. ... (2) of Cr.P.C. 10. ... Hence, keeping in view the provisions of Section 468 (2) of the Cr.P.C., the aforesaid DD No.1....
![Azad Hussain vs State of Assam [Being represented by PP, Assam] - 2025 Supreme(Gau) 1316](https://supremetoday-s3.b-cdn.net/Gauhati_small_1.png)
The Orders were put to challenge on the ground that the Order taking cognizance was barred by limitation in view of Section 468 , CrPC. ... Section 468 of the Code reads as under :- 468. ... Section 200 , CrPC. ... It was contended that the date of offence alleged by the complainant was passed on 04.10.2009 and the Order taking cognizance was on 04.12.2012, which was beyond a period of three years as stip....
Such an interpretation of Section 468 CrPC would be unsustainable and would render it unconstitutional. ... There is no reference either to Section 468 or Section 473 CrPC in that judgment. It does not refer to Sections 4 and 5 CrPC which carve out exceptions for the special Acts. ... In this context, it is useful to extract Section 468 Cr.P.C., as follows: " Section #....
Section 468 Cr.P.C. which prescribes the limitation period w.r.t. criminal cases. The same reads as under: "468. ... Considering the import of Section 468 Cr.P.C. and the fact that the chargesheet itself came to be filed much beyond the limitation period, the order passed by the learned ACMM does not warrant interference. 17. ... Thus, in view of Section 468 Cr.P.C., th....
He has drawn attention of this Court to section 468 of the Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: – 468. ... Learned Counsel submits that section 468 of the Cr.P.C. puts a bar on taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation. ... He submits that the maximum period of punishment is one year and as the petition was filed beyond one year, the same was not maintainable in the light of Section 468#....
The said fact is since not disputed, I see no reason why the benefit of Section 468 Cr.P.C. be not extended to the petitioner. ... Further, he would point out that even the complaint, which was filed before the learned Magistrate is barred under Section 468 Cr.P.C. as the alleged incident pertains to the year 2009. The impugned cognizance order was passed in the year 2015, after a lapse of 6 years. 4.
Neutral Citation No. ... 227 Cr.P.C. ... CRR No.3360 of 2015 (O&M) Neutral Citation No. ... Singh and Jasvir Singh for offences under Sections 306, 120-B, 419, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. ... Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Statements of the complainant and his son to this effect were recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C. During investigation, sections 419/467/468/471/120B IPC were added in the case. ... 14:58:28 Signature Not Verified NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2023:DHC:3642 BAIL APPLN. 699/2023Page 2 of 6 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/34/120-B IPC registered ... The present bail application has been filed by the petitioner under....
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing no. 57/2022 registered under sections 420/468/471 IPC at P.S. ... The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under section 200 Cr. ... Thereafter, the present FIR bearing no. 57/2022 registered under sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at P.S. EOW was got registered. 5. ... Patiala House ....
The present petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of FIR bearing no. 57/2022 registered under sections 420/468/471 IPC at P.S. ... The respondent no. 2 filed a complaint under section 200 Cr. ... Thereafter, the present FIR bearing no. 57/2022 registered under sections 420/468/471/34 IPC at P.S. EOW was got registered. 5. ... Patiala House ....
Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. The revision which was filed by the non-applicant was allowed and stopped the proceeding under Section 258 of Code of Criminal Procedure against the non-applicant. Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure which falls under Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads as under: “468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category sp....
For easy reference, Section 468 Cr.P.C. is reproduced as under:- “468. (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-
7. Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. reads as under:- “468. (2) The period of limitation shall be- (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation- (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhe....
Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation (1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in subsection (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in holding that there was 10 years delay in filing complaint. Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code reads as under :- "468. (2) The period of limitation shall be-....
(2) The period of limitation shall be - (a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years; [(3) Learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has erred in holding that there was 10 years delay in filing complaint. Section 468 of Criminal Procedure Code r....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
