Summary
Following the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew, the Supreme Court held that limitation under Section 468 CrPC runs to the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of criminal proceedings, which includes lodging an FIR with the police, and not to the date of chargesheet or cognizance. The High Court's quashing of an FIR under Sections 323/341 IPC as time-barred was set aside.
Issues
- Whether, for computing limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or initiation of proceedings, or the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
- Whether the rule in Sarah Mathew applies where the proceedings begin with an FIR lodged with the police and cognizance is taken on a police report.
Provisions considered
- Section 468, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Bars cognizance after the limitation period; the offence under Section 323 IPC, the most severe charged, carries up to one year, so Section 468(2)(b) prescribes one year, computed from the date of complaint or FIR, not cognizance. (¶¶ 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.3, 5.2.4, 5.8.4, 10)
- Sections 469 to 473, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Summarised as part of the scheme of Chapter XXXVI; Section 473, as explained in Sarah Mathew, contemplates condonation of the complainant's delay in filing, which shows that the date of filing is the material date. (¶¶ 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.8)
- Sections 2(d), 2(r), 173 and 190, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The respondent relied on the distinction between a complaint and a police report to distinguish Sarah Mathew; the Court rejected this, holding that proceedings are initiated when either a complaint is filed before the Magistrate or an FIR is lodged with the police. (¶¶ 7, 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4)
Held
- Under Sarah Mathew, binding Constitution Bench law reiterated in Amritlal, the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution, not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance, which is an act of the court outside the complainant's control. (¶¶ 5.2.5, 5.7.2, 5.8, 5.8.1, 5.8.4, 6.3, 10)
- The rule applies equally where proceedings begin with an FIR lodged with the police: criminal proceedings are initiated when the complaint is made either to the Magistrate or to the police, and that date is the starting point. (¶¶ 7.2, 7.3, 7.4)
- The High Court committed a patent error in quashing FIR No. 121 of 2011 on the ground that the chargesheet and cognizance came after one year from the incident. (¶ 10)
- Advocates owe a duty of fairness to concede the applicability of binding precedent and not to consume court time with arguments contrary to settled law; a Constitution Bench decision cannot be diluted by contending that a particular aspect was not considered. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 8.3, 9)
Result
Appeals allowed; High Court order dated 30.01.2025 in Crl. M.C. No. 1170 of 2017 and Crl. M.A. No. 7270 of 2016 set aside; trial to proceed expeditiously in accordance with law.