The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed that delayed criminal complaints, particularly for minor offences, cannot sustain prosecution if filed beyond the statutory limitation period. This judgment underscores the critical importance of procedural timelines in criminal jurisprudence and reinforces the threshold for framing charges under the CrPC.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The complainant, Mrs. Pramila Thite, alleged a series of incidents between 1998 and 1999 involving her neighbours, including house trespass, threats, abusive language, and physical assault. The most serious allegation was an assault on 3 May 1998, allegedly committed by accused Nos. 2, 3, and 7. The complaint was filed on 17 February 2000, over 21 months after the alleged assault.
Procedural History
- 3 May 1998: Alleged assault occurred
- 17 February 2000: Complaint filed before Metropolitan Magistrate, Andheri
- 28 August 2007: Magistrate discharged accused under Section 245 CrPC, holding no prima facie case existed
- 2007: Criminal Revision Application filed before Bombay High Court
- 22 January 2026: High Court dismissed the revision
Relief Sought
The applicant sought reversal of the discharge order and direction to frame charges under Sections 324, 326, 504, 506(2) and 34 IPC.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a complaint filed more than one year after the alleged offence - punishable by up to one year’s imprisonment - can sustain the framing of charges under the CrPC, given the bar of limitation under Section 468(2)(b) CrPC.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s court-appointed counsel argued that the delay in filing was due to fear and social pressure, and that the Magistrate erred in not considering the cumulative effect of multiple incidents. He contended that the court should have examined the complaint holistically and not dismissed it on technical grounds.
For the Respondent/State
The Additional Public Prosecutor supported the Magistrate’s order, emphasizing that the complaint was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed for offences punishable with up to one year’s imprisonment under Section 468(2)(b) CrPC. The State further argued that the allegations were vague, uncorroborated, and lacked specific details regarding time, place, and identity of assailants.
The Court's Analysis
The Court conducted a rigorous review of the complaint and evidence. It noted that the only incident capable of attracting Section 324 or 326 IPC was the alleged assault on 3 May 1998. However, the medical evidence recorded by PW-2 showed only simple injuries, which do not meet the threshold for Section 326 IPC. The Court held that even if the assault were proven, it would attract Section 323 IPC, punishable by up to one year, making Section 468(2)(b) CrPC applicable.
"The complaint, having been filed beyond the prescribed limitation is clearly barred and no cognizance would have been taken."
The Court further observed that the remaining allegations of threats and abuse were vague, uncorroborated, and lacked independent witness support. At the stage of framing charges, the court must assess whether the material, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction. Here, the evidence was inconsistent, legally infirm, and time-barred. The Court emphasized that limitation is not a mere procedural formality but a substantive bar to prosecution, designed to ensure promptness and fairness.
The Verdict
The revision was dismissed. The Court held that Section 468(2)(b) CrPC bars cognizance of offences punishable by up to one year when the complaint is filed beyond one year, and that the allegations failed to establish a prima facie case. The discharge order was upheld.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Limitation Is a Jurisdictional Bar
- Practitioners must verify limitation periods before filing complaints under IPC
- Delayed complaints for minor offences (e.g., hurt, criminal intimidation) are liable to be dismissed at the framing stage
- Courts will not entertain arguments of fear or delay as justification for exceeding statutory limits
Vagueness Defeats Prima Facie Case
- Allegations must specify time, place, and identity of accused
- Unsubstantiated, omnibus allegations will not satisfy the threshold for framing charges
- Independent corroboration is essential for non-physical offences like threats or abuse
Medical Evidence Must Align with Charges
- Simple injuries cannot support charges under Section 326 IPC
- Prosecution must ensure medical reports are obtained and matched to the alleged offence
- Overcharging based on speculative injury severity will be struck down
