Relevant date to compute limitation under Section 468 CrPC is date of final report and not date of FIR: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court recently held that the relevant date for calculating the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is the date on which the final report by the prosecuting agency is filed and not the date on which the first information report (FIR) is registered..Section 468 CrPC lays down the limitation period for courts to take cognizance of offences.In an order passed on January 24, Justice N Anand Venkatesh also said that one must be conscious of the fact that a ‘complaint’ under Section 190 of the CrPC is different from the information a complainant gives to the police and on the basis of which an FIR under Section 154 of the CrPC is then based..The Court noted that in the case of Sara Mathew vs Institute of Cardio Vascular Disease where the Supreme Court had held that held that the relevant date for computing the period of limitation was the date of filing of the complaint, the reference was to the complaint made before a court under Section 190 of the CrPC and not before Police. The High Court judge further noted that the same had also been affirmed by a three-judge bench of the apex court in the case of State of HP v Tara Dutt. .“From the above discussion, it is manifestly clear that all of the aforesaid decisions including the reference to the Constitution Bench in Sarah Mathew were cases arising out of a complaint under Section 190(1)(a) and not by way of a police report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. The decision in Sarah Mathew, supra, has no doubt held that the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint. However, as pointed out above, those observations were made in the context of a case arising out of a complaint under Section 190(1)(a). An FIR is lodged under Section 154 Cr.PC upon receipt of “information” and is not a “complaint”. The term “complaint” under the Cr.PC has a definitive meaning and the relaying of information to the police to set the criminal law in motion under Section 154 Cr.PC does not amount to giving a “complaint” within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code,” the Court said..The Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking several reliefs relating to the period of limitation. In one of the matters, a petition was filed by Cuddalore resident A Kaliyaperumal seeking transfer of investigation claiming the police had failed to file a final report. The Additional Public Prosecutor A Damodaran told the Court that the final report had been filed in the case but since it had been filed after the permissible limitation period, the concerned magistrate’s court was yet to take cognisance. The court had issued notice to the accused on the prosecution’s plea to condone such delay, Damodaran told the High Court..However, the petitioner’s counsel R Venkatesulu cited a Madras High Court judgment in the case of Kishore v State wherein a single-judge had cited the Sara Mathew judgement and held that there was no requirement for condoning the delay since in the case before him, the complaint had been lodged with the police within the period of limitation..Justice Venkatesh however, noted that the single-judge had failed to differentiate between a complaint made before a court and a complaint or the information given by a private person to the police on which the FIR in the case concerned was registered..“In the previous hearing, this Court had, prima facie, expressed its reservations on the aforesaid observations as it appeared to have equated the information given to the police under Section 154 Cr.PC as being akin to a complaint under Section 2(d) of the Code,” the Court said..The High Court ultimately held that the Sara Mathew judgement and all other judgements holding the date of cognisance as the cut off date for calculating the period of limitation, were referring to the definition of complaint under Section 190 of the CrPC..“For the aforesaid reasons, I am unable to subscribe to the view taken by the learned single judge in Kishore v State reported in (2023) 2 LW (Cri) 285. In normal circumstances, this would have necessitated a reference to a Division Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. However, as I find the law to be settled by a three-judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the requirement of making a reference has been obviated,” Justice Venkatesh said. “This decision makes it clear that the relevant date for reckoning the cut-off is the date on which the final report was filed and not the date on which the FIR was registered," the Court held..[Read Order]