Crime Never Dies but Limitation Applies – Madras HC Clarifies on Application of Limitation in Criminal Cases

In a landmark judgment that addresses the nuances of limitation in criminal proceedings, the High Court of Judicature at Madras, led by the Honourable Mr. Justice N. ANAND VENKATESH, pronounced a critical verdict in Criminal Original Petition Nos. 433 and 543 of 2024. The court meticulously analyzed the application of limitation periods under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C), specifically in cases initiated through police reports.

Justice Venkatesh, in his observation, noted, “A general principle of criminal law is that a crime never dies. This is expressed in the maxim ‘nullum tempus aut locus occurrit regi’, meaning that the lapse of time is no bar to the Crown for the purpose of initiating proceedings against offenders.” This pivotal statement underlines the judgment’s essence that while crimes are timeless, legal procedures for addressing them are bound by the limitation statutes.

The petitions concerned two separate but related issues: the transfer of investigation due to alleged police inaction (Crl.OP.No.433 of 2024) and the quashing of an FIR for exceeding the prescribed limitation period (Crl.OP.No.543 of 2024). The court directed the lower court to pass orders within six weeks on the delay in Crl.OP.No.433 of 2024, while quashing the FIR in Crl.OP.No.543 of 2024 due to the expiration of the limitation period without sufficient cause.

Highlighting the distinction between “complaint” under Section 2(d) Cr.P.C and “information” under Section 154 Cr.P.C, Justice Venkatesh clarified, “The term ‘complaint’ under the Cr.P.C has a definitive meaning and the relaying of information to the police to set the criminal law in motion under Section 154 Cr.P.C does not amount to giving a ‘complaint’ within the meaning of Section 2(d) of the Code.”

This clarification is pivotal in distinguishing the starting point for calculating the limitation period in criminal cases. The court emphasized that the limitation period commences from the date of filing the final report, not from the date on which the FIR was registered.

The judgment referenced several precedents, including the landmark decision in Sarah Mathew v Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, to reinforce its conclusions. The court opined that previous decisions, including Arun Vyas v Anita Vyas, which dealt with limitation periods, firmly established that the relevant date for reckoning the cutoff is the date on which the final report was filed.

In conclusion, the Madras High Court’s judgment serves as a crucial reference point for future criminal proceedings, ensuring that while the pursuit of justice is undeterred by time, it remains within the bounds of procedural limitations as prescribed by law.

Date of Decision: 24^th January 2024

A.Kaliyaperumal VS The Superintendent of Police