High Court
Legal Reasoning
7APPLN.143.2024.odtdown in the case of Bharat Damodar Kale & Anr. v. Stateof Andhra Pradesh, [2003] 8 SCC 559, makes itunequivocally clear that the Magistrate is well within hispowers to take cognizance of a complaint filed within aperiod of three years from the date of the commission ofoffence as mandated under section 468 CrPC. Therelevant portion is reproduced as under: “50. The Code imposes an obligation on theaggrieved party to take recourse to appropriateforum within the period provided by law and once hetakes such action, it would be wholly unreasonableand inequitable if he is told that his grievance wouldnot be ventilated as the court had not taken anaction within the period of limitation. Suchinterpretation of law, instead of promoting justicewould lead to perpetuate injustice and defeat theprimary object of procedural law. 51. The matter can be looked at from different anglealso. Once it is accepted (and there is no disputeabout it) that it is not within the domain of thecomplainant or prosecuting agency to takecognizance of an offence or to issue process and theonly thing the former can do is to file a complaint orinitiate proceedings in accordance with law, if thataction of initiation of proceedings has been takenwithin the period of limitation, the complainant is notresponsible for any delay on the part of the court orMagistrate in issuing process or taking cognizanceof an offence. Now, if he is sought to be penalizedbecause of the omission, default or inaction on thepart of the court or Magistrate, the provision of lawmay have to be tested on the touchstone of Article14 of the Constitution. It can possibly be urged thatsuch a provision is totally arbitrary, irrational andunreasonable. It is settled law that a court of law
Arguments
1APPLN.143.2024.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,BENCH AT AURANGABAD.CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 143 OF 20241]Gautam s/o Sukhdeo Chakre Age: 38 years, Occu. Labour,2]Bhimabai w/o. Sukhdeo ChakreAge: 80 years, Occu. Nil Applicant no.1 & 2 are R/o. Satdives Beed.3]Narhari s/o Sukhdeo Chakre Age: 59 years, Occu. Retired R/o. Swarajnagar Barshi Road Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.4]Pushpa w/o. Jayprakash Sonawane Age: 50 years, Occu. Service R/o. I.T.I. Colony Nagar Road Beed, Tq. & Dist. Beed.… ApplicantsVersus1]The State of Maharashtra Through: Mondha Police Station Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani. 2]Arati w/o Gautam Chakre,Age: 28 years, Occu. Household, R/o. Mahatma Puhle Nagar Karegaon Road, Parbhani, Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.… Respondents...Ms. Sanghmitra Wadmare, Advocate for Applicants.Mr. S. A. Gaikwad, APP for Respondent / State.Ms. Naseembanu Iliyas Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... 2APPLN.143.2024.odtCORAM :SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, JJ.DATE :09th June, 2025.O R D E R: (Per Sanjay A. Deshmukh, J.)1Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. 2This application is filed under Section 482 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure, 1973 (for short “the Cr.P.C.”) for quashing of theproceedings in R.C.C. No.658 of 2023, pending in the Court of learnedChief Judicial Magistrate, Parbhani, arising out of the FIR bearingCrime No.0229 of 2023, dated 1st July, 2023, registered with MondhaPolice Station, District Parbhani, for the offences punishable underSections 498-A, 323 and 504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code aswell as Charge Sheet No.221 of 2023. 3Applicant No.1 is the husband of the informant /respondent No.2. Applicant No.2 is the mother-in-law, applicant No.3is the brother-in-law and applicant No.4 is the sister-in-law of theinformant. 4The respondent No.2 / informant averred in the report thatshe married with applicant No.1 as per religious rites and customs on 3APPLN.143.2024.odt19th August, 2009. After marriage, the informant went to reside at hermatrimonial home. Out of the wedlock, she begotten one daughternamed Anjali, aged 12 years. For the initial two years of marriage, theinformant was treated well by the applicants. However, subsequently,she was treated with cruelty on petty issues. Applicant No.1 wasjobless. He used to demand Rs.1,00,000/- for purchasing amotorcycle. Applicant Nos.1, 2 and 4 used to abuse her. They used tosay that if the informant’s mother failed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- forpurchasing a motorcycle, the informant should be driven out of thehouse. Applicant No.3 whenever visited to the matrimonial house ofthe informant at Beed, he also used to abuse her. When the informantwas telling that fact to her mother and brother, they were convincingher. 5The informant further averred that on 29th May, 2015 ataround 02:00 pm, when she was at home, applicant No.1 again askedher why she had not brought Rs.1,00,000/- from her maternal home forpurchasing a motorcycle. Upon her inability to meet the demand, heabused and assaulted her with slaps and fist blows. At that time,applicant Nos.2, 3 and 4 also abused the informant. She immediatelyinformed that fact to her mother, who came to the matrimonial house ofthe informant at Beed and tried to convince the applicants, but none ofthem paid heed to her. Subsequently, applicant No.1 drove the 4APPLN.143.2024.odtinformant out of the matrimonial home. Thereafter, she returned toParbhani alongwith her mother and her daughter Anjali. The informantdid not lodge any complaint earlier, as she was hopeful that applicantNo.1 would take her back for cohabitation. Thereafter, she submitted awritten complaint on 10th May, 2023 to the Bharosa Cell, Parbhani.However, as there was no response from the applicants, the informantlodged the report against the applicants. 6The learned counsel for the applicants submits that theapplicants are falsely implicated in the crime. There is inordinate delaycaused in lodging the report. False allegation of demand of money forpurchasing a motorcycle is made against the applicants. There is nocogent and acceptable evidence against the applicants. Vague andgeneral allegations are made against the applicants. He lastly prayedto allow the application. 7The learned APP for the State strongly opposed theapplication and submitted that the applicants are involved in theserious crime. Their names are mentioned in the report. They treatedinformant with cruelty. He lastly prayed to reject the application. 8The learned counsel for the informant / respondent No.2also strongly opposed the application. She submitted that the namesof the applicants are mentioned in the report. They are involved in 5APPLN.143.2024.odtserious crime. They have committed anti-social crime. She lastlyprayed to reject the application. 9Here, it is relevant to refer to the decision of theHonourable Supreme Court in Mohammad Wajid and Another Vs.State of U.P. and Another, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 951;2023 INSC 683, whereunder the Honourable Supreme Court heldthus:-“34.……. it will not be just enough for the Court to lookinto the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for thepurpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredientsto constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not. Infrivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a dutyto look into many other attending circumstances emergingfrom the record of the case over and above the avermentsand, if need be, with due care and circumspection try toread in between the lines. The Court while exercising itsjurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or Article 226 ofthe Constitution need not restrict itself only to the stage ofa case but is empowered to take into account the overallcircumstances leading to the initiation/registration of thecase as well as the materials collected in the course ofinvestigation....”10A reference also can be made to the judgment in the caseof CBI Vs. Aryan Singh, reported in, 2023 SCC Online SC 379, inwhich the Honourable Supreme Court held as under:- 6APPLN.143.2024.odt“Para 10… As per the cardinal principle of law, at the stageof discharge and/or quashing of the criminal proceedings,while exercising the powers under Section 482 Cr. P.C.,the Court is not required to conduct the mini trial.”11We have perused the charge-sheet, particularly, the reportand the statements of witnesses. It is an admitted fact that theinformant is residing with her mother at Parbhani since 2015. Thereport is lodged after the notice dated 15th March, 2023 was sent to theinformant by her husband. As per Section 468 of the Code of CriminalProcedure, report for the offence punishable under Section 498-A ofthe IPC must be lodged within three years from the date of commissionof the offence. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of XYZ Vs.State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and another, by judgment dated 4thJune, 2025 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.2894 of 2025, reiteratedposition of law on the point of limitation. The Honourable SupremeCourt in the said case in paragraph No.15 observed as under:-“15.It is a settled position of law that for the computationof the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC therelevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or thedate of institution of prosecution and not the date on whichthe Magistrate takes cognizance (Sarah Mathew Vs.Institute Cardio Vascular Diseases by Its Director DRK. M. Cherian & Ors. [2014] 2 SCC 62. The dicta laid
Decision
8APPLN.143.2024.odtwould interpret a provision which would helpsustaining the validity of law by applying the doctrineof reasonable construction rather than making itvulnerable and unconstitutional by adopting rule oflitera legis. Connecting the provision of limitation inSection 468 of the Code with issuing of process ortaking of cognizance by the court may make itunsustainable and ultra vires Article 14 of theConstitution. 52. In view of the above, we hold that for thepurpose of computing the period of limitation, therelevant date must be considered as the date offiling of complaint or initiating criminal proceedingsand not the date of taking cognizance by aMagistrate or issuance of process by a court. We,therefore, overrule all decisions in which it has beenheld that the crucial date for computing the period oflimitation is taking of cognizance by theMagistrate/court and not of filing of complaint orinitiation of criminal proceedings. 53. In the instant case, the complaint was filedwithin a period of three days from the date of allegedoffence. The complaint, therefore, must be held to befiled within the period of limitation even thoughcognizance was taken by the learned Magistrateafter a period of one year. Since the criminalproceedings have been quashed by the High Court,the order deserves to be set aside and is accordinglyset aside by directing the Magistrate to proceed withthe case and pass an appropriate order inaccordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.””12In the present case, the report is lodged on 1st July, 2023.The punishment provided for the offence punishable under Section498-A of IPC is three years. The last incident narrated by the informant 9APPLN.143.2024.odtis of 29th May, 2015. Thus, the report is not filed within three yearsfrom the date of commission of the offence. Thus, the case is barredby limitation as per law laid down in the case of XYZ Vs. State (Govt.of NCT of Delhi) and another (cited supra) under Section 468(1)(c) ofthe Cr.P.C. Considering the legal reason above, if the applicants arecompelled to face the trial, it would certainly be an abuse of theprocess of the Court. We are therefore, inclined to allow theapplication by exercising our inherent powers under Section 482 of theCr.P.C. in the interest of justice to prevent the abuse of the process ofCourt. The application, therefore, deserves to be allowed. Hence, thefollowing order:-O R D E RI.The application is allowed.II.The proceedings in R.C.C. No.658 of 2023, pendingin the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Parbhani, arising out of the FIR bearing CrimeNo.0229 of 2023, dated 1st July, 2023, registered withMondha Police Station, District Parbhani, for theoffences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 and504 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code as well asCharge Sheet No.221 of 2023, stand quashed asagainst all these applicants. [ SANJAY A. DESHMUKH, J. ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ]nga