Limitation For Criminal Prosecution: Supreme Court Reaffirms That Clock Starts On Filing, Not Cognizance

Background of the Dispute

In Roma Ahuja Vs State And Another, the Supreme Court of India examined whether criminal proceedings arising from FIR No. 121 of 2011 were barred by limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC. The central issue was a narrow but critical one:

For computing limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC, should courts look at the date on which the complaint/FIR is filed (or prosecution is instituted), or the later date on which the Magistrate actually takes cognizance?

The Delhi High Court had quashed FIR No. 121 of 2011 on the footing that the charge-sheet was filed beyond the one-year period applicable to offences punishable under Section 323 IPC, and thus was hit by the bar of Section 468(2)(b) Cr.PC. The Supreme Court reversed this view, applying the Constitution Bench ruling in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases and Others, (2014) 2 SCC 62.

Facts Leading to Registration of FIRs

The Incident and Cross-FIRs

The events go back to an altercation that occurred on 09.05.2011:

  • The appellant had appeared along with her father and brother before the Special Executive Magistrate at Moti Nagar in proceedings under Section 107 read with Section 150 Cr.PC, initiated at the instance of her younger sister.
  • As per FIR No. 121 of 2011, when the parties exited the court premises, Respondent No. 2, Ashutosh, an advocate representing the appellant’s sister Shweta, allegedly abused and physically assaulted the appellant.
  • The appellant claimed injuries on her head, right eye, cheek and shoulder.
  • Respondent No. 2, in turn, alleged that he was assaulted by the appellant and her family members.

This mutual accusation resulted in:

  1. FIR No. 120 of 2011 lodged by Respondent No. 2 against the appellant and her relatives; and
  2. FIR No. 121 of 2011 lodged by the appellant against Respondent No. 2 and another.

Both FIRs were registered on 09.05.2011 at P.S. Moti Nagar. The offences in FIR No. 121 of 2011 were under Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 IPC. The accused persons were arrested and subsequently enlarged on bail.

Filing of Charge-Sheets and Cognizance

  • In the cross-case (FIR No. 120 of 2011), the Investigating Officer filed the charge-sheet on 13.07.2011.
  • In FIR No. 121 of 2011, the charge-sheet came to be filed much later, on 29.05.2012.
  • Relying on FIR No. 121 of 2011, the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate (West), Delhi took cognizance under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.PC for offences under Sections 323, 343 and 34 IPC.

In FIR No. 120 of 2011, charges were framed against the appellant, her father, and her brother for offences under Sections 323 and 343 read with Section 34 IPC.

Procedural History Before Trial Court and Revisional Court

Objection on Limitation Before the Trial Court

During the proceedings in FIR No. 121 of 2011, Respondent No. 2 raised an objection that cognizance had been taken beyond the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.PC, and sought discharge:

  • Arguments on limitation were advanced on 08.01.2014 and 22.09.2014.
  • The trial court rejected this plea, noting:
    • The order taking cognizance had attained finality and had not been challenged by any accused.
    • The cross-FIR (FIR No. 120 of 2011) arising from the same incident had been charge-sheeted within limitation.
    • The delay in filing the charge-sheet in FIR No. 121 of 2011 stemmed from the Investigating Officer’s inaction, and a party ought not to derive advantage from such negligence.

Revision and Further Applications

  1. Respondent No. 2 filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 36 of 2014 before the District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi, challenging the order dated 22.09.2014.

    • On 16.02.2015, the Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the revision, accepting that:
      • These were cross-FIRs.
      • Distinct Investigating Officers were involved.
      • The delay in FIR No. 121 of 2011 was attributable to a casual approach of the Investigating Officer.

  2. On 07.05.2015, Respondent No. 2 sought discharge under Section 258 Cr.PC.

    • The trial court, by order dated 04.04.2016, declined to discharge the accused.

  3. Respondent No. 2 then approached the Delhi High Court by Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 1407 of 2016 on 28.04.2016, praying for quashing of FIR No. 121 of 2011 and all consequential proceedings on the ground of limitation.

Meanwhile, on 17.12.2016, the trial court framed charges in FIR No. 121 of 2011 under Sections 323, 341 and 34 IPC against Respondent No. 2 and another accused. On 12.01.2017, the writ petition was renumbered as Crl. M.C. No. 1170 of 2017 with connected Crl. M.A. No. 7270 of 2016.

Delhi High Court’s Decision

The Delhi High Court, by common order dated 30.01.2025, allowed the petition of Respondent No. 2 and quashed FIR No. 121 of 2011 by holding: