The Supreme Court has held that cognizance of an offence taken beyond the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) would not be barred if the delay is not attributable to the complainant and the court finds it to be a fit and proper case to proceed under Section 473 CrPC.
The ruling came in Criminal Appeal No. 2734 of 2025 [arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2025], titled Sivankutty & Others vs. P.K. Patra, decided by a Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. Vinod Chandran.
Background
The appellants were accused in Complaint Case No. 13176 of 2018 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi. The complaint was filed on 5th September 2018 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 452, and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Magistrate, however, took cognizance only under Section 323 IPC by order dated 27th September 2019 and granted bail to the appellants. That order was not challenged by the complainant and attained finality.
The appellants approached the Delhi High Court under Section 482 CrPC, contending that since the alleged incident took place on 5th September 2015, the cognizance under Section 323 IPC—taken after more than three years—was barred by limitation as per Section 468 CrPC. The High Court dismissed their petition by order dated 5th December 2024.
Arguments and Legal Issue
The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the challenge to the Magistrate’s cognizance order despite the limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC.
The High Court had reasoned that since the complaint included offences such as Section 452 IPC (punishable with imprisonment up to seven years), and since no limitation is prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for offences punishable with more than three years’ imprisonment, the complaint itself was not barred by limitation.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasoning of the High Court, clarifying that:
“Question of offences being ‘tried together’, as is referred to in sub-section (3) [of Section 468 CrPC], would arise if cognisance were taken of more than one offence.”
Since the Magistrate had taken cognizance only under Section 323 IPC, which is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, the limitation period of one year under Section 468(2)(b) CrPC was applicable.
The Court observed:
“In the absence of any indication provided by Section 468, Cr. PC as to the starting point of limitation, the periods of six months, one year and three years [as in sub-section 2 (a), (b) and (c) respectively] would necessarily have to relate back to the date of offence and not to the date when the complaint is lodged.”
Importantly, the Court stated:
“If indeed, a complaint is lodged by a complainant within the period of limitation but cognizance is taken beyond such period, due to official process and/or for reasons not attributable to the respondent, the bar to take cognizance would not be attracted. This is because an act of court cannot prejudice anyone.”
The Court further clarified that:
“In a fit and proper case, the court is not powerless to take cognisance beyond the period of limitation prescribed in Section 468, Cr. PC if any of the twin conditions mentioned in Section 473 thereof is satisfied.”
However, in this case, the cognizance taken was clearly beyond the limitation period, and no explanation under Section 473 CrPC was invoked.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the bar under Section 468 CrPC applied to the cognizance taken under Section 323 IPC. Accordingly, it set aside the Delhi High Court’s judgment and the Magistrate’s cognizance order dated 27th September 2019.
The complaint case itself—Complaint Case No. 13176 of 2018—was quashed.
Case Details:
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
- Case Title: Sivankutty & Others vs. P.K. Patra
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2734 of 2025 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1093 of 2025)
- Advocates:
- For Appellants: Mr. Avijit Roy, Mr. Junais Padalath, Mr. Prasanth Kulambil
- For Respondent: Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, Dr. Lokendra Malik, Mr. George Pothan Poothicote, Mr. Madhusudan Bhayana
- For Appellants: Mr. Avijit Roy, Mr. Junais Padalath, Mr. Prasanth Kulambil
