Allowed¶42

Mathiyazhagan v. State Rep by

Madras HC26 Mar 2025CRL OP/3191/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quash of FIR; Section 482 CrPC petition; Crime No.759/2020; Anaikaranchathram Police Station, Mayiladuthurai; Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) IPC; Section 468 CrPC limitation bar of three years from FIR registration; no final report filed, no cognizance taken; FIR quashed as abuse of process; Justice G.K. Ilanthiraiyan; decided 26.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the FIR in Crime No.759 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent; consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition (Crl.M.P.No.2337 of 2024) is closed. ¶42

Mathiyazhagan Vs State Rep by — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Crl.O.P.No.3191 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 26.03.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

Crl.O.P.No.3191 of 2024 and Crl.M.P.No.2337 of 2024

¶7

1. Mathiyazhagan 2. Surya

¶8

3.Rajkumar ... Petitioners

¶9

vs.

¶10

1.State Rep.by the Inspector of Police, Anaikaranchathram Police Station, Mayiladuthurai District.

¶11

Mani .. Respondents

¶12

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records in connection with the FIR in Crime No.759/2020 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Vijayaragavan For R1 : Mr.R.Vinothraja Govt.Advocate ( Crl.side)

¶14

Page 1 of 6

¶15

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

¶16

Crl.O.P.No.3191 of 2024

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to to quash the FIR in Crime No.759 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent.

¶19

The case of the prosecution is that on 22.07.2020, there was a wordy quarrel between the 1^st petitioner and his relative regarding land dispute. Hence, the defacto complainant had questioned the 1^st petitioner and for which the petitioners had abused the defacto complainant using filthy language and attacked him and also threatened with dire consequences. On the basis of the above said allegations, the first respondent police registered the complaint against the petitioners and other for the offences under Sections 294(b) 323, & 506(i) of IPC, in Crime No.759 of 2020.

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

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

¶23

Crl.O.P.No.3191 of 2024

¶24

A perusal of the records would show that t he petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime.No.759 of 2020. After registering the FIR, the first respondent h ad completed the investigation. Even, assuming that the first respondent filed final report and the same has not been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. All the offences are punishable with maximum punishment of three years. Therefore, the Trial Court ought to have been taken cognizance within thee years from the date of filing of FIR. However, so far, the first respondent did not file any final report and no cognizance has been taken by the Trial Court. Therefore, as per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., there is a bar to taking cognizance after lapse of three years. It is relevant to extract the provision under Section 468 of Cr.P.C., which reads as follows :-

¶25

468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the

¶26

period of limitation.

¶27

(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.

¶28

(2)The period of limitation shall be -

¶29

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only ;

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

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

¶32

Crl.O.P.No.3191 of 2024

¶33

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year ;

¶34

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.

¶35

(3) For the purpose of this section, the period of limitation, in relating 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.

¶36

Therefore, the period of limitation for filing final report is three

¶37

years from the date of registration of the FIR. The Trial Court cannot take any cognizance after expiry of three years from the date of registration of FIR.

¶38

In view of the above, the FIR in Crime No.759 of 2020 on the file of the first respondent cannot sustained and is liable to be quashed, since keeping the FIR pending would serve no purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law.

¶39

Page 4 of 6

¶40

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

¶41

Crl.O.P.No.3191 of 2024

¶42

Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands allowed.

¶43

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶44

26.03.2025