The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, has clarified that the limitation period for taking cognizance of an offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) begins from the last act of cruelty. The decision was pronounced by a division bench comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi in Musin Thengade vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 887 of 2023.
Background of the Case
The case arose from allegations of domestic violence and dowry harassment against the petitioner, Musin Babulal Thengade, by his wife, Reshma Musin Thengade. The complaint was filed under Sections 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the IPC. The FIR, lodged on January 6, 2023, at Killari Police Station, Latur, alleged that the applicant had subjected the complainant to cruelty and harassment over a demand for ₹2,00,000.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Gaurav Deshpande, sought to quash the FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings, arguing that the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). They contended that the last alleged act of cruelty occurred on October 20, 2019, and the complaint was lodged over three years later, making it time-barred.
The prosecution, represented by Advocate G.A. Kulkarni (for the State) and Advocate Namita Thole (appointed for the complainant), countered that Section 498-A constitutes a continuing offence, and therefore, the limitation period should be calculated from the last wrongful act.
Court’s Observations and Decision
In its ruling, the High Court reaffirmed that Section 498-A is a continuing offence, meaning that each act of cruelty resets the limitation period. The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings in Arun Vyas vs. Anita Vyas (1999) and Ramesh & Others vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2005), which held that a fresh period of limitation begins with every instance of cruelty.
Key Excerpts from the Judgment:
“Offence under Section 498-A of IPC is a continuing wrong, but that does not mean that limitation would run indefinitely. The correct interpretation is that the limitation period should be computed from the last act of cruelty.”
The Court also noted the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, acknowledging that the Supreme Court had extended limitation periods during this time. Given that the complainant approached the Women Grievance Redressal Cell in November 2022 before filing the FIR in January 2023, the Court deemed the delay justified.
Judgment Outcome
- Application of husband (Applicant No.1) Rejected: The Court upheld the criminal proceedings against Musin Babulal Thengade, ruling that the limitation period had been appropriately extended in the interest of justice under Section 473 of the CrPC.
- Relief for In-Laws (Applicants No. 2 to 4): The Court quashed the FIR against the father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law, stating that the allegations against them were vague and unspecific.
