CrimApp in Bombay HC sought to quash an FIR and charge-sheet for affray filed beyond the limitation period. The court held that cognizance was illegally taken without a Section 473 application and quashed the proceedings.
Quashing and setting aside of the Charge-sheet and resultant proceedings in S.C.C.No.2006/2017.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
26-apl-232-20
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 232 OF 2020
Kadir Kadar Memon ..Applicant. Versus
The State of Maharashtra ..Respondent
Mr. Lokesh Zade i/b. Mr. Adwait Bhonde for Applicant. Mr. K. V. Saste, APP for State/Respondent.
__________ CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE : 2 DECEMBER 2021
P.C. :
. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Taken up for disposal.
VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE
Digitally signed by VINOD BHASKAR GOKHALE Date: 2021.12.06 12:41:47 +0530
1 of 4
Gokhale
226-apl-232-20
Thereafter the Charge-sheet is filed and the case is pending before the learned J.M.F.C.
1 (2008) 13 Supreme Court Cases 229
2 of 4
26-apl-232-20
3
thus filed after the period of 2 years, 2 months and 12 days.
“468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation -
(1) ………
(2) ………
(b) One year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) ……..
(3) ……..
However, section 473 of the Cr.p.c. states that, notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. This provision, therefore, stipulates that even beyond the period of limitation the Court can take cognizance of an offence, provided there is proper explanation or interests of
3 of 4
26-apl-232-20
4
justice, so requires.
“a. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the Charge-Sheet and the resultant proceedings in S.C.C.No.2006/2017 pending at the files of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Cantonment Court, Pune.”
(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.)
(NITIN JAMDAR, J.)
4 of 4
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the charge-sheet filed beyond the one-year limitation period under Section 468 CrPC should be quashed when no application was filed under Section 473 CrPC to condone the delay.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
P. K. Choudhury Versus CommanderRelied on¶19
P. K. Choudhury Versus Commander, 48 BRTF (GREF)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Kadir Kadar Memon
The State of Maharashtra
Nitin Jamdar
Sarang V. Kotwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court