Section 468 CrPC |  You Can’t Keep the Sword and Drop the Blade: Supreme Court Quashes Complaint Filed After Limitation Expired

“Once Cognizance is Taken Only for a Minor Offence, the Clock of Limitation Cannot Be Turned Back”— In a notable ruling dealing with the interpretation of limitation in criminal complaints, the Supreme Court of India quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellants, holding that cognizance taken under Section 323 IPC after the lapse of the one-year limitation period was legally unsustainable. The Court made it clear that once the Magistrate chose not to take cognizance of the more serious offences originally alleged, “the allegations in respect of offences carrying punishment in excess of three years pale into insignificance.”

The Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and K. Vinod Chandran strongly criticised the High Court’s interpretation of Section 468 CrPC, warning that such reasoning could become a blueprint for abuse of process, allowing delayed and legally impermissible prosecutions to survive under the garb of graver but unsubstantiated accusations.

The matter arose from Complaint Case No. 13176 of 2018 filed by the respondent, P.K. Patra, who accused Sivankutty and others of committing offences under Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The alleged incident dated back to September 5, 2015, but the complaint was not filed until three years later, on September 5, 2018.

When the matter reached the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Saket Courts, Delhi, he took cognizance only under Section 323 IPC—an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to one year—and granted bail to the accused. Notably, the Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the more serious charges such as Section 452 IPC, which could attract imprisonment of up to seven years.

The accused then approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of the complaint on the ground of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, but the High Court dismissed their petition, reasoning that since the original complaint included offences punishable with imprisonment exceeding three years, the bar of limitation would not apply.

The core legal question before the Supreme Court was whether cognizance of an offence under Section 323 IPC—punishable with imprisonment not exceeding one year—could be validly taken after three years from the date of the alleged incident, especially when the Magistrate had not taken cognizance of the more serious offences.

The Court answered in the negative, holding that: “Question of offences being ‘tried together’, as is referred to in sub-section (3), would arise if cognisance were taken of more than one offence. That is not the case here.”

The bench explained that Section 468 CrPC is explicit—for offences punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment, cognizance must be taken within one year from the date of offence, unless an extension is justified under Section 473 CrPC.

In this case, the delay was not attributable to court process or reasons beyond the control of the complainant, and neither had the Magistrate invoked Section 473 to condone the delay. The Court rejected the High Court’s rationale, cautioning:

“If the reasoning of the High Court were accepted, it would pave the path for any disgruntled individual to lodge a complaint beyond three years... and later use unproven serious allegations to keep alive otherwise time-barred minor charges.”

The Court stated unequivocally that once the Magistrate declined to take cognizance of the graver offences, the complaint effectively stood on the footing of a summary bailable offence, to which the limitation bar under Section 468(2)(b) CrPC applied strictly.

Setting aside both the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated December 5, 2024, and the Magistrate’s order dated September 27, 2019, the Supreme Court quashed the criminal complaint, observing:

“Since the Magistrate has not taken cognizance of any of the offences alleged apart from the offence under Section 323 IPC, the bar in Section 468, Cr. PC took effect and the High Court was not justified in spurning the challenge.”

The Court clarified that the date of filing the complaint is irrelevant if cognizance itself is delayed beyond the prescribed period, and in the absence of any application or finding under Section 473, the proceeding is legally unsustainable.

By quashing the complaint, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a critical procedural safeguard in criminal law: the strict enforcement of limitation periods under Section 468 CrPC. The Court’s verdict stands as a stern reminder that prosecuting authorities and courts cannot bypass the statutory scheme under the pretext of alleged graver offences, especially when cognizance is taken only for a minor one.

In the words of the Court, “The complaint could not have been kept alive on the strength of unexamined allegations once the graver offence was rejected by the Magistrate.” This judgment not only clarifies the legal position but also aims to prevent future misuse of the judicial process through stale and opportunistic complaints.

Date of Decision: May 21, 2025