Madras High Court
Murugeswari vs The Commissioner Of Police on 5 April, 2022
Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN
Crl.RC.No.414 of 2022
Murugeswari ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Inspector of Police,
H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai – 600 019.
3. Ramkumar ... Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Revision Petition filed under Section 397 r/w 401 of
Cr.P.C to set aside the order passed in Crime No.333 of 2013 dated
10.02.2018 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai and direct the second respondent police to file the final report
before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.S.Manikandan
For Respondents
For R1 & R2 : Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam,
Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
Page 1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2022
ORDER
This present criminal revision petition has been filed praying to set
aside the order passed in Crime No.333 of 2013 dated 10.02.2018 on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, Chennai and direct
the second respondent police to file the final report before the learned
Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvottiyur, Chennai.
2. The case of the petitioner is that on 19.12.2012, during the
course of employment under the third respondent, while unloading the
goods, suddenly the consignments fell down on the deceased S.Selvaraj
and resulted in causing an internal injury on his neck. Immediately, he
was admitted in the Government Stanley Hospital and took treatment till
19.01.2013. When his condition becomes deteriorated, thereafter on
24.02.2013, he was shifted to Rasi Hospital, No.573, T.H. Road, Chennai
and admitted there for advance treatement and took treatment till
27.02.2013, battled for life in the hospital and died on 27.02.2013.
3. In the mean while, the petitioner, who is the wife of the
deceased, lodged a complaint before the second respondent police and on
receipt of the said complaint, the second respondent registered a case in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2022
Crime No.333 of 2013 dated 07.03.2013 as against the third respondent
for the offence under Section 304(A) of IPC. Later, due to the non filing
of charge sheet, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvottiyur, by an
order dated 10.02.2018, closed the First Information Report, under
Section 468 of Cr.P.C., as the same is barred by limitation. Challenging
the same the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Heard Mr.B.S.Manikandan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.Leonard Arul Joseph Selvam, learned Government
Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the respondents 1 & 2.
5. Admittedly, the present First Information Report in Crime
No.333 of 2013 has been registered on 07.03.2013 for the offences
punishable under Section 304(A) of IPC. We are all aware, the offence
under Section 304(A) of IPC provided punishment with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both.
6. Therefore, under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., the respondent
police is having an obligation to file final report within a period of three
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2022
years. In this regard, Section 468 of Cr.P.C., reads as follows :-
“ 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse
of the period of limitation.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere
in this Code, no Court, shall take cognizance of
an offence of the category specified in sub-section
(2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be— (a)
six months, if the offence is punishable with fine
only; (b) one year, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one
year; (c) three years, if the offence is punishable
with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
but not exceeding three years.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the
period of limitation, in relation to offences which
may be tried together, shall be determined with
reference to the offence which is punishable with
the more severe punishment or, as the case may
be, the most severe punishment.”
The said Section is clearly ambiguous that no Court shall take
cognizance, if the final report has not been filed within a stipulated
period.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2022
7. Hear it is a case, the learned Magistrate has passed an order
on 10.02.2018, after the period of five years from the date of registration
of the case. In fact, under Section 469(1) of Cr.P.C., the period of
limitation will be started from the date of offence, or from the date on
which the same comes to the knowledge of the particular aggrieved party
or to the Police officer whichever is earlier.
8. More than that, the averments found in the complaint given
by the revision petitioner before the Police did not disclose a bigger
offence. Further, the offence committed by the proposed accused is not a
continuing offence. In the judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC in the case
of Srinivas Pal Vs. Union Terriory of Andra Pradesh, which was held
that the trial which was taken cognizance after a long gap shall stand
vitiated.
9. Therefore in all, this Court finds that the order passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate is not perverse. Accordingly, this Criminal
Revision Petition stands dismissed.
05.04.2022
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
rts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.R.C.No.414 of 2022
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
rts
To
1.The Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvottiyur.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police,
H-8, Thiruvottiyur Police Station,
Thiruvottiyur,
Chennai – 600 019.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras.
Crl.RC.No.414 of 2022
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
