The single judge bench of the Tripura High Court held that Section 473 of Cr.P.C allows a court to take cognizance of an offense after the expiry of the period of limitation, if is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained.
Brief facts
The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant lodged a false complaint against the Petitioner under Section 326/307/386/34 of IPC. The charge sheet was filed after one year of the filing of the FIR and after more than 3 years from the date of the incident, the cognizance was taken against the accused/Petitioner. Aggrieved by this, the present application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing/setting aside the FIR and the order passed in which cognizance was taken against the petitioner by the Ld. Judicial Magistrate.
Observations of the court
The Hon’ble Court observed that no cognizance can be taken against the petitioner since the statute of limitations under Section 468 of the Cr.PC. has passed. In terms of Section 473 of the Cr.P.C., it permits a court to take cognizance of an offense committed after the statute of limitations has passed provided it is satisfied that the delay has been adequately explained in light of the circumstances and the facts of the case.
Based on these considerations, the court set aside the impugned order in which the cognizance was taken.
The decision of the court
With the above direction, the court allowed the criminal petition.
Case Title: Sri Tulshi Paul V. The State of Tripura
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amarnath Goud
Case No.: Crl.Petn 27 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Kundan Pandey, Advocate.
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S. Ghosh, Addl. PP.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com