Date Of Complaint Relevant For Determining Limitation U/S 468 CrPC To Prosecute An Offence, Date Of Cognizance Immaterial: Karnataka HC

The Karnataka High Court has said that in a complaint where the offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, the limitation for filing the complaint u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is one year from the date of occurrence of the cause of action and any complaint filed beyond that period is not maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by MLA B S Suresh and another and quashed the offences registered against them in 2019 under Section 285 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act.

The petitioner purchased a commercial complex on February 05, 2014, which was constructed in 2005. The Fire Department inspected the premises on three dates, once in 2017 and twice in 2018. Later, on April 02, 2019, the Department registered a complaint before the jurisdictional police.

The same was questioned before the High Court, wherein an interim order of stay of all further proceedings was granted on September 09, 2019. Then on October 11, 2019, the Police filed a charge sheet before the concerned Court and the concerned court and summons were issued to the petitioners on 06.10.2023.

The petitioners argued that for an offence punishable under Section 285 of the IPC, the maximum punishment is imprisonment of up to six months or fine or both. It was stated that in terms of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C, the limitation for filing the complaint is one year from the date of occurrence of the cause of action. The complaint was registered on 02.04.2019, which is admittedly beyond one year, and beyond the limitation stipulated under the Act.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying the first petitioner had not installed any safety equipment in the building. Therefore, it led to the registration of the complaint. 

Findings:

The bench noted that there was no record of the respondents carrying out any inspection beyond 31.01.2018. Thus the last of the date of inspection or the date on which the cause of action arose was 31.01.2018.

Then it said “Therefore, the limitation even, if it is not prescribed under the Act, in terms of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C, it is six months. The complaint was admittedly filed after 13 months, beyond one year. Therefore, on the period of limitation, the petition deserves to succeed.”

Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Sarah Mathew vs. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, 2013, the court refused to accept the view of the coordinate bench.

It then held “I deem it appropriate to hold that it is not the date, on which the concerned Court, would take cognizance of the offence, but the date on which the complaint is preferred by the aggrieved person.”

Citing an example the court said, “If an incident has taken place on 01.01.2020 and if the alleged incident meets the ingredients of any offence punishable with maximum imprisonment of three years, the limitation under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., would come to an end on 31.12.2023, a complaint should be preferred on or before 31.12.2023.”

It noted that it is immaterial as to when cognizance can be taken by the concerned Court and said that "in certain cases, cognizance would be taken years later that would be the act of the Court, that is not the purport of Section 468 of the Cr.P.C.”

Further, it said that the alleged act did not meet the ingredients of Section 285 of the I.P.C.

Accordingly, it allowed the petition and said “If further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become contrary to law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Appearance: Senior Advocate Sandesh J Chouta for Advocate Leela P Devadiga for Petitioner.

Additional SPP Jagadeesha B.N for Respondents

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

Case Title: B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12339 OF 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order