Lodging FIR Is Not Institution Of Criminal Proceedings; Prosecution Begins When Police Report Is Filed In Court: Madras High Court
The Bench noted that Section 514(3) BNSS explanation is inapplicable to investigation under CrPC; magistrate taking case on file by affixing a seal shows non-application of mind, and directed action against police officer.
The Madras High Court has held that the first information given to the police does not constitute the institution of a complaint or criminal proceedings, and that the prosecution is instituted only when, after investigation, the police report is filed before the Court. Accordingly, it quashed an NDPS case where the report reached the Court long after the one-year limitation period.
The Court held that the explanation to Section 514(3) of the BNSS which treats the date of recording information as the relevant date, cannot apply to an investigation conducted under the CrPC. It quashed the FIR and the cognizance taken, and directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to act against the Investigating Officer.
Further pulling up the trial court, the Bench observed that the Magistrate mechanically took the case on file using a rubber stamp without any application of judicial mind or a reasoned order. Because the prosecution neither sought an extension under Section 473 of the CrPC nor obtained a formal delay-condonation order, the Court quashed the proceedings and ordered strict legal action against the erring officer.
A Bench of Dr. Justice P. Murugan observed, “Whenever the first information is given to the police, it does not constitute the institution of a complaint or criminal proceedings. The investigation is to be conducted and once the investigation is completed, the police report, whether positive or negative, is filed before the Court, thereby instituting the prosecution or criminal proceedings. Therefore, the Magistrate has misconstrued the concept of a complaint under section 2(d) of the Cr.P.C. A complaint defined under section 2(d) of Cr.P.C filed before the Magistrate under section 200 of the Cr.P.C. is distinct from the information given to the police for the registration of an F.I.R. Further, the Magistrate misunderstood the date of the occurrence, the filing of the information, and the completion of the investigation. The occurrence took place on 27.12.2020, and the information was filed on 27.12.2020 and the investigation was completed on the same date”.
Advocate R. Karunanidhi appeared for the petitioner and C. Susikumar, GA appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, was alleged to have been intercepted on December 27, 2020 at Nehru Nagar junction, Madurai, with 270 grams of ganja in 27 small packets. The FIR was registered under Sections 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, which prescribes a maximum of one year’s imprisonment, or a fine of up to Rs. 10,000, or both. He said he learnt of the case only when he sought to apply for Assam Rifles recruitment in 2022.
The petitioner filed the quash petition contending that no charge sheet had been filed within one year and the FIR had not reached the jurisdictional Court.
On September 23, 2026, the Court called for reports from the Judicial Magistrate No. V, Madurai, and the Investigating Officer. The Magistrate reported that the final report was e-filed on August 05, 2022 but not taken on file for want of the FIR, was produced in person on October 12, 2025, and was taken on May 15, 2026, relying on Roma Ahuja v. State and the BNSS Explanation.
The Court held that the CrPC governs under Section 531 BNSS, as the offence and investigation predate the new law. It held that a complaint under Section 2(d) CrPC is distinct from information to police, and that following Arun Vyas, Tara Dutt and A. Kaliyaperumal, limitation is reckoned from the filing of the charge sheet. It found the Investigating Officer’s account that the report was prepared on December 27, 2020 false, as it invoked Section 193 BNSS. It also held that merely stamping a charge sheet “taken on file” does not amount to cognizance, which requires application of mind under Sarah Mathew.
“Even assumed for a moment, the investigating Officer filed charge sheet as early as on 27.12.2020, whereas the question of invoking section 193 of BNSS has not been properly explained, wherein, there was no such law on that date, wherein the BNSS was passed in the year 2023 and came into force on 01.07.2024, thereby, a false case has been foisted against the petitioner is supported by concrete evidence. The act of the investigation officer is nothing but falsification of public record before the Court of law”, it said.
“…the F.I.R. was registered on 27.12.2020. Though the final report was filed online on 05.08.2022, it was submitted after the expiry of the period of limitation. Subsequently, the same was produced before the Court on 12.10.2025 for compliance with certain requirements, which is clearly barred by limitation...”, the Bench noted.
The Court allowed the petition, quashed the FIR and the case, and directed the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, to take legal action against the Investigating Officer and report within three months. The connected petition was closed.
Cause Title: Sivaganesh v. The Inspector of Police, S.S. Colony Police Station, Madurai City & Anr., Crl.O.P.(MD) No. 15408 of 2024.
Appearances:
Petitioner: R. Karunanidhi, Advocate.
Respondents: C. Susikumar, Government Advocate (Criminal Side).