AMRITLAL versus SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

AMRITLAL versus SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

The appeal is allowed on the basis that, following the Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew, the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution and not the date of Magistrate's taking cognizance; since the written complaint was filed on 10.07.2012 within three years of the alleged offence on 04.10.2009, the High Court's quashing of proceedings as time-barred was erroneous and is set aside.

Parties
Appellant: AMRITLAL; Respondent: SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 06.03.2019 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 26287 of 2018 (criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2022)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court dated 06.03.2019 set aside.
Legal Topics
Limitation Under Section 468 Cr PC, Cognizance, Section 482 Cr PC, Chapter XXXVI Cr PC, Binding Effect of Constitution Bench Decisions
Criminal Procedure Criminal Law Limitation Under Section 468 Cr PC Cognizance Section 482 Cr PC Chapter XXXVI Cr PC Binding Effect of Constitution Bench Decisions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMRITLAL

Appellant

SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 06.03.2019 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Misc. Criminal Case No. 26287 of 2018 (criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2022)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 For computation of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, whether the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution or the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in treating the date of taking cognizance as decisive and holding the prosecution barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the decision in Sarah Mathew requires reconsideration

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed on the basis that, following the Constitution Bench decision in Sarah Mathew, the relevant date for computing limitation under Section 468 CrPC is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution and not the date of Magistrate's taking cognizance; since the written complaint was filed on 10.07.2012 within three years of the alleged offence on 04.10.2009, the High Court's quashing of proceedings as time-barred was erroneous and is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court dated 06.03.2019 set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned order dated 06.03.2019 of the High Court set aside
  • Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26287 of 2018 before the High Court dismissed