Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from cross-FIRs filed after an incident on 09.05.2011 involving the appellant-complainant and respondent-accused, an advocate. The appellant filed FIR No. 121 of 2011 for offences under Sections 323 and 341 IPC, while the respondent filed FIR No. 120 of 2011 against the appellant and her family. The charge-sheet for FIR No. 121 was filed on 29.05.2012, over a year after the incident. The trial court took cognizance, but the respondent-accused sought discharge on limitation grounds, arguing that the one-year period under Section 468 CrPC had lapsed. The trial court and revisional court rejected this, noting the delay was due to the Investigating Officer's negligence and that cross-FIRs should be considered together. The High Court, however, allowed the respondent's petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashing FIR No. 121 on the basis that the limitation bar under Section 468 was absolute and the charge-sheet was filed beyond one year. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was the computation of the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC—specifically, whether it runs from the date of the offence or the date of filing the charge-sheet. The appellant contended that the limitation commences from the date of the offence per Section 469, and delay can be condoned under Section 473, emphasizing that the accused should not benefit from police negligence. The respondent argued that the charge-sheet filing date was crucial and the bar was absolute. The Supreme Court analyzed Chapter XXXVI of CrPC, noting that Section 468 bars cognizance after the limitation period, but Section 469 specifies commencement from the offence date, and Section 473 allows condonation if delay is properly explained. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the limitation as absolute without considering Section 473 and the context of cross-FIRs. It emphasized that negligence by the Investigating Officer should not extinguish the prosecution, especially in cases involving the same incident. The Court reversed the High Court's order, restoring the proceedings in FIR No. 121, and directed expeditious trial, highlighting the need for a holistic approach in cross-FIR scenarios.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Limitation for Taking Cognizance - Computation of Limitation Period - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Sections 468, 469, 473 - High Court quashed FIR on ground that charge-sheet was filed beyond one-year limitation period from date of incident - Supreme Court held that limitation period under Section 468 commences from date of offence per Section 469, not from date of filing charge-sheet, and delay can be condoned under Section 473 if properly explained - Court emphasized that negligence of Investigating Officer should not benefit accused, especially in cross-FIR cases (Paras 5-5.2.4). B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Grounds of Limitation - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482 - High Court allowed petition under Section 482 to quash FIR based on absolute bar of limitation under Section 468 - Supreme Court reversed, holding that High Court erred in treating limitation as absolute bar without considering Section 473's provision for condonation of delay - Court noted that cross-FIRs from same incident require coordinated investigation and prosecution (Paras 2.1-3.6).
Issue of Consideration
What would be the relevant date for computation of the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, whether it is the date when the criminal complaint is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance?
Final Decision
Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court order dated 30.01.2025, and restored the proceedings in FIR No. 121 of 2011, directing expeditious trial
Law Points
- Limitation period for taking cognizance under Section 468 CrPC commences from the date of offence
- not from the date of filing charge-sheet
- Court can condone delay under Section 473 CrPC if satisfied with explanation
- Cross-FIRs arising from same incident require holistic consideration
- Negligence of Investigating Officer should not benefit accused
