The relevant date to compute the limitation u/s 468 and 469 of CrPC

                                              

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                        RESERVED ON    : 23.01.2024        DELIVERED ON :  24.01.2024

                                                                        COARAM:

                              THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

                              CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NOs. 433 and 543 OF 2024                                                                                          AND CRL.MP. NO. 372 OF 2024

CRL.OP.NO.433 OF 2024

A. KALIYAPERUMAL                                                .... PETITIONER

                      VERSUS

1. The Superintendent of Police                                                                                                                       Cuddalore,                                                                                                                                                   Cuddalore District.

2. The Inspector of Police                                                                                                                                 Ramnatham, Thittakudi                                                                                                                             Cuddalore District.                                                    .... RESPONDENT

(CR. NO. 24 OF 2019).

PRAYRER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to transfer to Investigation in Crime No. 24 of 2019 dated 14.02.2019 from the Respondent Police to any other Investigation Agent for further Investigation and to file the final report afresh.

Crl.OP.No.543 of 2024

1. Subhash                                                                                                                                                    2. Aakash                                                                                                                                                      3. Sharmila @ Chellem                                              .... Peitioners/ Accused 1 to 3

                Versus

1. State rep. by the Inspector of Police                                                                                                           Sulur Police Station Coimbatore District.         .... 1st Respondent/Complainant                                

PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records in connection with the impugned FIR in Crime No.749 of 2015, on the file of the respondent and quash the same.                                                             

For Petitioners

in Crl.OP.No.433 of 2024 : Mr.R.Venkatesulu

in Crl.OP.No.543 of 2024 : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan

For Respondents:

in Crl.OP.Nos.433 & 543 of 2024: Mr.A.Damodaran

                            Additional Public Prosecutor for R1

Assistance from the Bar:

                            : Mr. M. Mohamed Riyaz

                            : Mr. S. Thiruvengadam

                                                             COMMON ORDER

An important issue was raised in these petitions and hence the issue is being dealt with in common in these criminal original petitions.

SHORT SUMMARY OF THE JUDGEMENT

The relevant date to compute the limitation u/s 468 and 469 of CrPC is is date of final report and not date of FIR: Madras High Court Justice Anand Venkatesh held the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation is the date on which the final report by the prosecuting agency is filed and not the date on which the FIR is registered. 

Detailed Summary of the Hon’ble Madras High Court Judgement dated 23.01.2024

The Madras High Court has recently held that the reckoning date for calculating the limitation period under Section 468 and 469 of CrPC would be from the date of filing of the final report and not the date of registration of FIR.

In First Case the court went on to the discussion while hearing a plea seeking to transfer an investigation on the ground that police had not taken steps to complete the investigation.

In another second case, the plea was for quashing the FIR as the final report had not been filed to date thus contending that there was a bar in taking cognizance.

During the hearing, the Additional Public Prosecutor informed the court that in the first case, the final report had been filed but since the final report was filed much beyond the period of limitation, the court had not taken cognizance of the same and issued notice to the accused.

Relying upon another decision of the Madras High Court in Kishore v. State, it was contended that there was no requirement for condoning since the complaint was lodged with the police within the period of limitation.

In the above case, the single judge had observed that the relevant date for Section 468 CrPC was the date of filing the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution. Justice Venkatesh, however, opined that the single judge had misunderstood information given to the police under Section 154 CrPC as a complaint under Section 9(d).

“The court observed that as per Section 154 CrPC, registration of FIR was based on “information” and the same could not be equated to a “complaint”.

“The court also noted that a complaint could be made only to the court and not to a police officer.”

During the discussion, the court also discussed the decision of the Apex Court in Sarah Mathew v Institute of Cardio Vascular Disease wherein the Apex court had held that the relevant date was the date of filing of the complaint. However, the court noted that Sarah Mathew arose from a complaint made to the magistrate under Section 190(1)(a) and was not based on a police report.

The court also looked into the Apex Court decision in Arun Vyas v Anita Vyas, where the court had held the cut-off date as the date on which the final report was filed and not the date of filing of the FIR. The court also noted that this decision was upheld by a three-judge bench in State of H.P. v. Tara Dutt and a two-judge bench in Ramesh v. State of T.N.

Thus, the court noted that the earlier decision of the single judge had wrongly relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sarah Mathew which was based on a complaint and thus did not subscribe to the view taken therein.

In the first case, the court thus directed the Magistrate to grant the opportunity of hearing to the accused and dispose of the petition within six weeks.

In the second case, the court noted that though the crime was registered in 2015, no final report had been filed till date even though it should have been filed within 3 years. Thus, the court opined that keeping the FIR pending would not serve any purpose and thus quashed the FIR.