Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal challenging the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order quashing criminal proceedings on limitation grounds. The appellant had filed a written complaint on 10.07.2012 alleging that on 04.10.2009, the respondent refused to return 33.139 kg of silver entrusted to him. An FIR was registered, chargesheet filed, and the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on 04.12.2012. The accused-respondents repeatedly raised limitation objections, which were rejected by both the Trial Court and Additional Sessions Judge in revision. However, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings, holding that taking cognizance on 04.12.2012 was barred by limitation since the offence date was 04.10.2009. The core legal issue was whether for computing the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing the complaint/institution of prosecution or the date the Magistrate takes cognizance. The appellant argued the High Court's approach contradicted the Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, while the respondents relied on State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh and contended Sarah Mathew required reconsideration. The Supreme Court analyzed the Constitution Bench's clear holding in Sarah Mathew that the relevant date for limitation computation is the date of filing the complaint or institution of prosecution, not the date of cognizance. The Court found the High Court fundamentally erred by using the cognizance date (04.12.2012) instead of the complaint filing date (10.07.2012), which was within the 3-year limitation period from the offence date (04.10.2009). The Court firmly rejected the respondents' argument for reconsideration of Sarah Mathew, emphasizing that Constitution Bench decisions are binding and Sarah Mathew had comprehensively addressed all relevant aspects of Chapter XXXVI CrPC. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, dismissed the petition before the High Court, and directed the Trial Magistrate to proceed expeditiously with the trial, with provisions for coercive measures if the accused-respondents attempted to delay proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Limitation Period - Computation of Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 468 - High Court quashed criminal proceedings holding cognizance taken on 04.12.2012 was barred by limitation as offence date was 04.10.2009 - Supreme Court reversed, applying Constitution Bench ruling in Sarah Mathew that limitation period is computed from date of filing complaint (10.07.2012), not date of cognizance - Held that complaint filed within 3-year limitation period from offence date, making prosecution maintainable (Paras 4-6). B) Criminal Procedure - Precedent - Binding Nature of Constitution Bench Decisions - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Respondent argued Sarah Mathew required reconsideration as certain Chapter XXXVI aspects not considered - Supreme Court rejected this, stating Constitution Bench decisions are binding regardless of whether particular arguments were considered, provided point was actually decided - Held that Sarah Mathew comprehensively addressed all relevant aspects of Chapter XXXVI CrPC (Paras 6-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether for computing period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, relevant date is date of filing complaint/institution of prosecution or date Magistrate takes cognizance of offence
Final Decision
Appeal allowed. Impugned order dated 06.03.2019 set aside. Petition before High Court (Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26287 of 2018) dismissed. Trial Magistrate directed to proceed with trial expeditiously. Parties to appear before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Khachrod on 01.04.2022.
Law Points
- For computing limitation period under Section 468 CrPC
- relevant date is date of filing complaint or institution of prosecution
- not date Magistrate takes cognizance
- Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew is binding precedent
- High Court cannot question Constitution Bench decision on grounds of different interpretation
