Allowed¶39

M.Muhamed Ismayil v. State Rep.by

Madras HC25 Apr 2025CRL OP/22453/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J., 25.04.2025) allowed Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024 under S.528 BNSS, 2023 and quashed C.C.No.9162 of 2022 against A3 M.Muhamed Ismayil as barred by limitation under S.468 Cr.P.C.: FIR Crime No.425 of 2014 dated 14.10.2014 (temple idol theft / fraudulent sale, Ss.380(2) r/w 120(B) IPC); final report only on 24.08.2022 after eight years; cognizance beyond limitation barred for both the three-year-limit offence under S.380 IPC and the one-year-limit S.120(B) offence as recorded by the Court; related: A2 revision Crl.R.C.No.1 of 2024 already allowed on limitation ground.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; Criminal Original Petition allowed. ¶39

M.Muhamed Ismayil Vs State Rep.by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai; Criminal Original Petition allowed.

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether taking of cognizance in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 for the offence under Section 380 IPC (maximum punishment of three years, as recorded by the Court), more than three years after registration of FIR in Crime No.425 of 2014, is barred by limitation under Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

For the offence under Section 380 of IPC, having maximum punishment of three years, the respondent ought to have filed the final report and the trial Court should have taken cognizance within three years from the date of registration of the FIR under Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C.; cognizance beyond the period of limitation is barred.

¶33

Ratio / Principle

As recorded by the Court, Section 120(B) IPC carries maximum punishment of six months or fine or both, and under Section 468 Cr.P.C. cognizance should have been taken within one year of the registration of the FIR; the final report having admittedly been filed after the limitation period (about eight years after the FIR), the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance on the final report in Crime No.425 of 2014.

¶34

Key takeaways

Since the final report was filed after the limitation period, the entire proceedings in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 cannot be sustained and are liable to be, and are hereby, quashed; the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.ratio¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Original Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 allowed; proceedings in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 (Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore) quashed. Petitioner, arrayed as A3, was charged for offences punishable under Section 380(2) r/w 120(B) of IPC arising out of FIR in Crime No.425 of 2014 registered on 14.10.2014 over theft of a temple idol and its attempted fraudulent sale as an ancient idol. The final report was filed only on 24.08.2022, i.e., after a period of eight years. Held (G.K. Ilanthiraiyan, J.): for the offence under Section 380 IPC, carrying maximum punishment of three years, Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. required cognizance within three years from registration of the FIR; and, as recorded by the Court, Section 120(B) IPC carries maximum punishment of six months or fine or both, for which cognizance was required within one year under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cognizance taken beyond the period of limitation being barred, the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance; the entire proceedings were unsustainable and were quashed. (Noted: A2's discharge petition Crl.M.P.No.41018 of 2023 had been dismissed on 08.12.2023, but his revision Crl.R.C.No.1 of 2024 was allowed on 12.07.2024.)

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 25.04.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024

¶7

M.Muhamed Ismayil ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, Coventional Crime, Veppery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 on the file of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai and quash the same, in respect of the petitioner.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondent : Mr. R.Vinothraja Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the

¶15

proceedings in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 pending on the file of the learned

¶16

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, thereby taken

¶17

Page 1 of 6

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

IPC.

¶20

Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024

¶21

cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 380(2) r/w 120(b) of IPC.

¶22

2 . The case of the prosecution is that the first accused had stole

¶23

the idol from a temple and he tried to sell it fraudulently as ancient idol through the petitioner and other accused persons. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent registered the FIR in Crime No.425 of 2014 and after completion of investigation, final report was filed and the same has been taken cognizance in C.C.No.9162 of 2022.

¶24

3 . The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted

¶25

that the FIR has been registered on 14.10.2014 and after completion of investigation they have filed final report only on 24.08.2022 viz., after a period of eight years from the date of the registration of FIR. The petitioner is arrayed as A3 and the first accused died. Further the second accused filed discharge petition before the trial Court on the ground of limitation in Crl.M.P.No.41018 of 2023 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 08.12.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the second accused preferred a revision in Crl.R.C.No.1 of 2024 and the same was allowed by the revisional Court by an order 12.07.2024.

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024

¶29

On instructions, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.

¶30

Side) appearing for the respondent police submitted that the trial has been commenced and it is pending.

¶31

5 . Heard the learned Counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

¶32

6 . On perusal of the records, it is revealed that the petitioner is

¶33

now being charged for the offence punishable under Section 380(2) r/w 120(B) of IPC. The offence under Section 380 of IPC has a maximum punishment of three years. Therefore, the respondent ought to have filed final report and the trial Court should have taken cognizance within a period of three years from the date of registration of the FIR, according to Section 468(2) of Cr.P.C. Beyond the period of limitation, the trial Court cannot take cognizance, since it is barred by limitation.

¶34

7 . As far as Section 120(B) of IPC is concerned, it has maximum punishment of six months or fine or both. As per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., within a period of one year from the date of registration of the FIR, the trial Court should have taken cognizance after the filing of the

¶35

Page 3 of 6

¶36

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶37

Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024

¶38

final report. Admittedly, the respondent filed final report after the limitation period and therefore, the trial Court ought not to have taken cognizance on the final report filed in Crime No.425 of 2014, after the period of eight years. Therefore, the entire proceedings cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed.

¶39

8 . In view of the above discussions, the proceedings in C.C.No.9162 of 2022 on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, is hereby quashed and the Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶40

25.04.2025 Index : Yes/No Neutral citation : Yes/No Speaking/non-speaking order

¶41

rts

¶42

Page 4 of 6

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judishttps://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

Crl.O.P.No.22453 of 2024

¶45

¶46