Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.468 – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.498A, 34 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation – Allegations of cruelty and dowry demand against the appellant-husband and in-laws, by the respondent no.2-wife – Both parties police officer – Filing of complaints by respondent no.2, and withdrawal of one – Thereafter, respondent no.2 registered FIR against the appellant and her in-laws for commission of offences u/ss.498A, 406 and
34 and chargesheet was filed – Magistrate framed charges only u/ss.498A rw s.34 – Revision Petition by the appellant that allegations against him and his family were false; that the complaint was lodged after an inordinate delay of 3 years; and that the cognizance on the complaint was taken beyond the limitation period – Sessions Court discharged the appellant and the in-laws for the offences u/ss.498A and 34 holding that the Magistrate took cognizance of timebarred case – High Court set aside the order passed by the Sessions Court – Correctness:
Held: For the computation of the limitation period u/s.468 the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance – Magistrate is well within his powers to take cognizance of a complaint filed within a period of three years from the date of the commission of offence as mandated u/s.468 – Simply because the cognizance is taken at a later stage, but the complaint was filed within the specified period from the commission of the offence, the complainant cannot be put to prejudice and the complaint cannot be discarded as time-barred – High Court was right in holding that considering the date of commission of offence and the date of filing of complaint, the complaint was lodged by the complainant within the period of limitation of three years as per s.468 – Not a case where the complaint or the issuance of process is ex-facie barred by limitation – Magistrate rightly took cognizance of the offence u/s.498A and the question of applicability or exercise of powers u/s.473 CrPC does not arise – Furthermore, the scrutiny of the allegations in the FIR and the material on record reveals that no prima facie made out against the appellant or his family – Divorce decree of their marriage, has already been passed, and has attained finality – Upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and that the alleged incidents pertain to the year 1999 and since then the parties have moved on with their respective lives, it would be unjust and unfair if the appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial – In the interest of justice, and in exercise of power u/Art.142, the FIR and the chargesheet are quashed and set aside. [Paras 11-19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.