Whether provisions of S 468 of CRPC are applicable to Domestic violence Act proceeding before the stage of S 32 of said Act?

This Court is of the view that Section 468 of Cr.P.C.

has applicability in the matter of Domestic Violence only at the

stage of applicability of Section 32 of Domestic Violence Act

where question of taking cognizance is involved. So far as

applicability of Section 468 of Cr.P.C. is concerned, this section

shall not apply in Domestic Violence Act prior to Section 32 of

Domestic Violence Act.

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CRIMINAL REVISION No.993 of 2019

Amit Kumar  Ramanand Singh Vs State of Bihar

CORAM:  MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN

Date : 11-04-2023.

Print Page

Relevant Date To Compute Limitation Period U/Sec 468 CrPC Is whether Date Of Filing Of Complaint Or Date Of cognizance of offence?

 3.1. (i) Whether for the purposes of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of the prosecution or whether the relevant date is the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence?

3.2. (ii) Which of the two cases i.e. Krishna Pillai [Krishna Pillai v. T.A. Rajendran, 1990 Supp SCC 121] or Bharat Kale [Bharat Damodar Kale v. State of A.P., (2003) 8 SCC 559] (which is followed in Japani Sahoo [Japani Sahoo v. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty, (2007) 7 SCC 394]), lays down the correct law?

The Constitution Bench answered the aforesaid questions as follows: -

51. In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC 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. 

Therefore, the enunciations and declaration of law by the Constitution Bench do not admit of any doubt that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, 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 of the offence. The High Court has made a fundamental error in assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written complaint was indeed filed by the appellant on 10.07.2012, well within the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission of offence i.e., 04.10.2009.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 301 OF 2022 

 AMRITLAL VERSUS SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

Dated: FEBRUARY 28, 2022

Coram: DINESH MAHESHWARI; VIKRAM NATH, JJ. 

Author: Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Print Page

When prosecution for sexual offence is liable to be quashed?

 The commission of offence as alleged by respondent No.2

against the petitioner is in the month of February, 2004. On that day,

offence under Section 354 of the IPC was punishable with imprisonment

of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with

fine, or with both and offence under Section 509 of the IPC was

punishable with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one

year, or fine, or both. If the punishment provided under offences under

Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC is considered along with limitation

provided under Section 468 of the Cr.PC., then, it is clear that for the

offences punishable under Section 509 of the IPC, the limitation provided

is of one year and for offences punishable under Section 354 of the IPC is

concerned, the limitation provided is of three years.

8. No doubt, the provisions of Section 473 of the Cr.PC. deals

with extension of period of limitation in certain cases. Under these

provisions, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry

of the period of limitation, provided it is satisfied on the facts and

circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or it

is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. The subject FIR came to

be filed 14 years after the occurrence of the incident in question and

11 years after the period of expiration of limitation. We have perused the

order taking cognizance by the concerned Magistrate and, we find that

neither there is an application by the prosecutions for extension of

limitation or condonation of delay nor there are reasons for condoning

such delay by the Magistrate. In other words, neither delay is properly

explained nor there are reasons by Magistrate for condoning the same in

the interests of justice. In our opinion, the Magistrate, after expiry of the

period of limitation, could not have taken cognizance especially in the

absence of explanation under Section 473 of the Cr.PC..

9. The Apex Court in Bhajanlal and ors. (supra) has given

categories of cases, by way of illustrations, wherein powers of the High

Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the

Cr.PC. can be exercised to secure the ends of justice. We are concerned

with category (6) which reads as under :

“102….

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the

provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the

proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code

or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the

grievance of the aggrieved party.”

The facts and circumstances of the present case, in our

considered opinion, clearly falls in the above category. We are satisfied

that the Magistrate, in view of the provisions of Section 468 of the Cr.PC

and when there is no case made out under Section 473 of the Cr.PC.,

could not have taken cognizance. Continuation of the prosecution of the

petitioner, therefore, in our opinion, would be abuse of the process of law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 1854 OF 2018

Mahesh Murthy  vs  The State of Maharashtra 

CORAM : RANJIT MORE & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATE : 9th

Print Page

Whether for purpose of computing period of limitation U/S 468 of Cr.P.C. relevant date is date of filing of complaint?

 In view of the above, we hold that for the purpose of
computing the period of limitation under Section 468 of the
Cr.P.C. 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. We further hold that
Bharat Kale which is followed in Japani Sahoo lays
down the correct law. Krishna Pillai will have to be
restricted to its own facts and it is not the authority for
deciding the question as to what is the relevant date for the
purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section
468 of the Cr.P.C.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.829 OF 2005

Mrs. Sarah Mathew Vs  The Institute of Cardio Vascular
Diseases by its Director – Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors. 

Dated;NOVEMBER 26, 2013.

Print Page

Whether issue of limitation provided under S 468 of crpc is applicable to domestic violence proceeding?

So far as issue of limitation provided under section 468 CrPC is concerned, it has no application to section 12 of the Act of 2005 as it is not a complaint and does not provide punishment. Section 12 of the Act of 2005 provides for an application by the aggrieved person or even by the protection  officer. The petitioners have wrongly construed it to be a complaint so as to attract section 468 CrPC. In view of above, even second argument is not legally tenable. 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER 
SB Cr Misc Petition No.4452/2013
Pankaj Sharma & anr versus Smt Priyanka Sharma 
Dated;1.4.2015  
MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

REPORTABLE
Citation; 2015 CRLJ 3924

Print Page