Limitation For Offence Punishable U/S 498-A IPC Shall Commence From Last Act Of Cruelty: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench rejected the Criminal Application of an accused husband praying to quash the FIR against them.
The Bombay High Court held that the limitation for the offence punishable under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) shall commence from the last act of cruelty.
The Aurangabad Bench held thus in a Criminal Application filed by the accused persons praying to quash the FIR registered against them.
A Division Bench of Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Rohit W. Joshi observed, “… we are of the opinion that limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. Offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence implies that each act of cruelty would offer new starting point of limitation. Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period. Such interpretation will render Section 468 of the Cr. P.C. nugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code which does not appear to be the intention of legislature.”
The Bench added that, had there been intention to exclude Section 498-A of the IPC from the sweep of Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), express provision could have been made for the said purpose.
Advocate Gaurav L. Deshpande appeared on behalf of the Applicants while APP G.A. Kulkarni and Advocate Namita Thole appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The Applicants were the husband, father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law of the Respondent (wife) whose marriage was solemnized in 2011. The couple was blessed with two children from the wedlock and as per the Respondent, for a period of around 3 years after the marriage till the birth of their girl child, the relations were cordial as in any normal family. The Respondent claimed that thereafter, the accused-husband started raising doubt about her character and allegedly, he used to beat her under influence of liquor.
He would allegedly insist her to get Rs. 2 lakhs from her parents for starting plumbing business. She also claimed ill-treatment and harassment by the in-laws. Resultantly, she lodged a Complaint with the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Latur against all the accused persons. Since they did not come forward for reconciliation, she lodged an FIR against them. Hence, the accused persons sought quashment of FIR against them before the High Court.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “We have noticed that the last incident narrated in the First Information Report is dated 20.10.2019. Within a period of few months thereafter i.e. from March 2020 lock-down of Pandemic of Covid-19 was imposed. Taking note of the situation, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has extended the limitation for filing of cases from time to time finally up to June 2022. We may take judicial note of the fact that from March 2020 till about second wave of Covid-19 pandemic which was April/May 2021, the situation was very grim, thereafter gradually situation got eased out. However, as stated above, limitation for filing all sort of the cases was extended by Hon'ble Supreme Court up to June 2022.”
The Court said that the case is made out for extension of time for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 473 of CrPC, considering the allegation by the wife regarding ill-treatment including abuses and physical act of beating on the part of the husband for demand of dowry, the Covid-19 situation, and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
“We are of the opinion that it would be in the interest of justice that cognizance of the matter should be taken although the same is barred by limitation. Normally we would have remitted the matter to learned Magistrate to decide the aspect of the limitation, however, having regard to the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that it will not be necessary to remit the matter back to the learned Magistrate”, it added.
The Court further noted that the delay that is caused in the matter is less than one month if the date of approaching Women Grievance Redressal Cell is considered and around two and half months if the date of lodging FIR is considered.
“Even if we consider the date of charge sheet, the delay is only three months and ten days. Having regard to the extent of delay and Covid-19 situation coupled with principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the matter need not be remitted to the learned Magistrate to decide the issue of limitation. The applicant No.1 has failed to make out any case for interference. We do not deem it appropriate to quash the First Information Report against the applicant No.1”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court rejected the Application as against the husband, allowed the same as against the others, and refused to quash the FIR against the husband.
Cause Title- Musin Babulal Thengade & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AUG:2858-DB)
