The Bombay
High Court recently ruled that the limitation period under Section 468 of the
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for prosecuting an offence under Section 498A of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC) begins from the last act of cruelty.
A division
bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit Joshi clarified that the
limitation for prosecution under Section 498A cannot extend indefinitely.
"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.
The Bombay
High Court emphasized that if Section 498A of the IPC were intended to be
excluded from the purview of Section 468 of the CrPC, an express provision
would have been made to that effect.
The bench
was hearing a plea filed by a family seeking to quash an FIR lodged against
them on January 6, 2023, based on an incident of cruelty dated October 20,
2019.
While the
court found no material in the FIR to proceed against the family members, it
considered the case against the husband. He argued that, since the punishment
under Section 498A carries a maximum sentence of three years, the limitation
period for taking cognizance, as per Section 468 of the CrPC, should also be
three years.
The husband
contended that the FIR, filed in January 2023, was based on an incident from
October 2019. He further pointed out that a complaint had been lodged with the
Women's Grievance Redressal Cell in November 2022, and the chargesheet was
filed on January 22, 2023.
He argued
that cognizance of the offence was taken beyond the prescribed limitation
period. According to him, the three-year limitation should be counted from
October 2019—the date of the last alleged act of cruelty. He emphasized that
even the complaint to the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell was filed after this
period, making both the FIR and the subsequent chargesheet time-barred.
However, the
court agreed with the prosecution’s argument that Sections 468 and 473 of the
CrPC must be read together. While Section 468 prescribes a limitation period
for taking cognizance of offences, Section 473 allows an extension in cases
where the delay is adequately explained or when taking cognizance serves the
interests of justice.
The judges
noted that although the last alleged act of cruelty occurred in October 2019,
the Covid-19 lockdown was imposed just a few months later, in March 2020. The
Supreme Court had subsequently extended the limitation period for filing cases
until June 2022.
Given the
wife’s allegations of ill-treatment, including physical abuse for dowry,
coupled with the Covid-19 circumstances and the Supreme Court’s directives on
limitation, the bench held that the case warranted an extension under Section
473 of the CrPC. The judges opined that taking cognizance of the matter,
despite the limitation, was in the interest of justice.
The court
observed that the delay in the case was minimal—less than a month if calculated
from the date of the complaint to the Women’s Grievance Redressal Cell
(November 2022) and about two and a half months from the date of the FIR. Even
considering the chargesheet date, the delay was only three months and ten days.
Given the minor delay and the Covid-19 extensions, the bench found no need to
remit the matter to the Magistrate for a decision on limitation. Consequently,
it declined to quash the FIR against the husband.
However, the
court quashed the FIR against the husband’s family members, stating that the
allegations against them were vague, general, and omnibus—an apparent attempt
to implicate them in a matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife. The
bench remarked that the case exemplified the misuse of legal provisions to
over-implicate family members.
With these
findings, the court disposed of the petition.
Appearance:
- Advocate Gaurav Deshpande
represented the Applicants.
- Additional Public Prosecutor GA
Kulkarni appeared for the State.
- Advocate Namita Thole was
appointed to represent the Wife.
Case Title:
Musin Thengade vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 887 of 2023)
