Limitation For Prosecuting One Under Section 498A IPC Will Commence From Last Incident Of Cruelty: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that that the point of limitation under section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for an offence under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) shall commence from the last act of cruelty. 

A division bench of Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi said that limitation for prosecution under section 498A will not continue for an indefinite period. 

"We are of the opinion that limitation for offence punishable under section 498-A of the IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. Offence under section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence implies that each act of cruelty would offer new starting point of limitation. Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period. Such interpretation will render Section 468 of the CrPC nugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC, which does not appear to be the intention of legislature," the judges said in the order pronounced on January 29.

Had there been intention to exclude Section 498-A of the IPC from the sweep of Section 468 of the CrPC express provision could have been made for the said purpose, the bench added.

The judges were dealing with a plea filed by a family seeking to quash the FIR lodged against them on January 6, 2023, which was based on an incident of cruelty which took place on October 20, 2019. 

While the bench found no material in the FIR to proceed against the family members, it only dealt with the FIR qua the husband, who argued that the limitation for prosecution as provided under section 468 of the CrPC will apply in the instant case since the sentence punishable under 498A is three years thus the limitation for taking cognisance of the said offence will be three years. 

The husband pointed out that the FIR was lodged by the wife in January 2023, which was based on an incident of October 2019. He also pointed out that a complaint was also made to the Women's Grievance Redressal Cell in November 2022 and the chargesheet in the case was filed on January 22, 2023.

"The cognisance of the offence is taken after the prescribed period of limitation. The limitation of three years should be counted from October 2019, which is last alleged incident of ill-treatment. Even the complaint before the Women Grievance Redressal Cell is filed beyond the period of three years. The FIR is filed thereafter beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, filing of the charge sheet and taking the cognisance of the offence is also beyond prescribed period of limitation," the husband argued. 

However, the judges agreed with the arguments of the prosecution that a conjoint reading of sections 468 and 473 from the CrPC will indicate that although the limitation is prescribed for taking cognisance of certain offences, time can be extended in cases where either the delay is properly explained or when it is in the interest of justice to take cognisance of the matter despite the same being barred by limitation.

The judges further noted that though the last incident of cruelty was of October 2019, within a period of few moths i.e. in March 2020 the lockdown of Covid-19 was imposed  and thereafter, the Supreme Court had extended the limitation for filing of cases from time to time finally up to June 2022.

"Having regard to the facts of the present case, i.e. allegation by the wife regarding ill treatment including abuses and physical act of beating on the part of the husband for demand of dowry, the Covid-19 situation and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the case is made out for extension of time for taking cognisance of the offence under Section 473 of the CrPC," the judge held. 

The bench opined that it would be "in the interest of justice" that cognisance of the matter should be taken although the same is barred by limitation. It also took into account the fact that the delay that is caused in the matter is less than one month if the date of approaching Women Grievance Redressal Cell (in November 2022) and over two and a half months, if considered from the date of lodging the FIR. 

"Even if we consider the date of charge sheet, the delay is only three months and ten days. Having regard to the extent of delay and Covid-19 situation coupled with principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the matter need not be remitted to the Magistrate to decide the issue of limitation. The accused husband has failed to make out any case for interference. We do not deem it appropriate to quash the FIR against him on the point of limitation," the bench said while refusing to quash the FIR.

The judges, however, quashed the FIR qua the family members of the husband, saying, "The allegation, apart from being vague, general and unspecific, is also omnibus. The allegation is clearly an attempt to implicate family members of the husband in matrimonial dispute inter-se between wife and husband. The present case offers another unfortunate example of wife resorting to over implication."

With these observations, the bench disposed of the petition.

Appearance:

Advocate Gaurav Deshpande appeared for the Applicants.

Additional Public Prosecutor GA Kulkarni represented the State.

Advocate Namita Thole was appointed to represent the Wife. 

Case Title: Musin Thengade vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 887 of 2023)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 48

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment