New Delhi | June 11, 2025

 

In a significant clarification regarding criminal procedure, the Supreme Court of India has held that for the purpose of limitation under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the date of filing the complaint or initiating prosecution is decisive not the date on which a Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence.

 

Key Observations by the Court

 

A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma ruled that complainants cannot be made to suffer the consequences of procedural delays caused by courts. The Court emphasized that once a complaint is filed within the statutory limitation period, it satisfies the requirement under Section 468 CrPC, regardless of when the Magistrate formally takes cognizance.

 

“Delay on part of the Magistrate in taking cognizance should not defeat the prosecution initiated within limitation,” the Court noted, reinforcing principles of procedural fairness and access to justice.

 

The Court clarified that the triggering point for limitation is the initiation of prosecution, and not the administrative or judicial act of cognizance.

 

 

This ruling addresses a recurring procedural confusion in lower courts where cases are sometimes dismissed due to delayed cognizance, even when the original complaint was filed within time. The judgment will have implications for:

• Women-centric offences like Section 498A IPC (cruelty by husband/in-laws), where delays are common due to social stigma.

• Ensuring consistency and clarity in interpreting limitation provisions.

• Protecting complainants from being penalized for court backlogs or inaction.