COMPLAINT QUASHED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION – OCCURENCE IN THE YEAR 2011 – COMPLAINT IN THE YEAR 2021………….PARA 5. The one and only point on which the petitioner has submitted his arguments is that there is a huge delay in giving the complaint and on the date of the complaint itself, the case is barred by limitation.

👆👆👆 COMPLAINT QUASHED ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION – OCCURENCE IN THE YEAR 2011 – COMPLAINT IN THE YEAR 2021………….PARA 5. The one and only point on which the petitioner has submitted
his arguments is that there is a huge delay in giving the complaint and
on the date of the complaint itself, the case is barred by limitation. The
records would show that for the occurrence that is alleged to have
occurred during the academic year 2010 – 2011, a complaint has been
given in the year 2021. The petitioner has been charged for offence
under Section 354 IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of
Harassment of Women Act, 2002. The maximum punishment at the
time of occurrence for the offence under Section 354 IPC was one year
imprisonment and for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act, 2002 was three years imprisonment. As per Section 468 Cr.P.C., the time prescribed for
taking cognizance of offence is three years from the date of occurrence.
As per Section 468 Cr.P.C. the period of limitation shall commence
from the date of occurrence. ……13. So the date of filing the complaint is also material for a
petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to be filed. In the above judgment,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the law by stating that the
petition to condone the delay should be filed at the time of giving the
complaint itself. Admittedly, at the time of filing the complaint, no
petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. was filed. The FIR sent to the
Magistrate did not accompany any petition filed under Section 473
Cr.P.C. The act of cognizance by the Magistrate would start from the
moment the Magistrate applies his mind while reading the FIR. Hence
the relevant date for filing the petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. is the date on which the complaint is sent to the Magistrate and not while
filing the final report….14. Though the allegations made by the second respondent is
serious in nature, because of the absence of any petition under Section
473 Cr.P.C. to condone the delay filed along with the complainant, the
case becomes barred by limitation. In the said circumstances, I feel that
the investigation cannot serve any fruitful purpose and for the reasons
of technical flaw, the FIR is liable to be quashed.