The Bombay High Court recently addressed the limitation period for filing cases under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), ruling that the time limit for prosecution commences from the last incident of cruelty. This ruling came in response to a petition filed by a family seeking to quash an FIR registered against them in January 2023, based on an alleged act of cruelty that occurred in October 2019.
Background of the Case
The case involved allegations of domestic violence and dowry-related harassment. The complainant, the wife, lodged an FIR against her husband and in-laws, citing ill-treatment and demands for dowry. She claimed that her husband physically abused her and demanded Rs. 2,00,000 for starting a plumbing business. The FIR was registered on January 6, 2023, while the last alleged act of cruelty occurred on October 20, 2019.
Read Also:- Delhi Court Acquits Man in Dowry Death Case: Citing Insufficient Evidence
The family members of the husband argued that the FIR was time-barred, as the limitation period for offenses punishable by up to three years under Section 498A IPC is three years, as per Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). They contended that the case should have been filed before October 2022.
The husband’s counsel argued:
The FIR was filed more than three years after the last incident, making it time-barred.
Even the complaint before the Women Grievance Redressal Cell was filed in November 2022, beyond the three-year limitation period.
The subsequent charge sheet filed on January 22, 2023, was also beyond the legal time frame.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Laws Protecting Women from Dowry Harassment Should Not Be Misused
On the other hand, the prosecution maintained that:
A combined reading of Sections 468 and 473 of the CrPC allows for an extension of the limitation period if the delay is justified or if taking cognizance of the case serves the interest of justice.
The COVID-19 pandemic and the Supreme Court’s extension of limitation periods due to lockdowns must be taken into account.
Court’s Observations and Verdict
The Bombay High Court considered multiple aspects while delivering its verdict. The judges emphasized that while Section 498A IPC is a continuing offense, its limitation does not extend indefinitely. However, the court noted that from March 2020 onwards, the Supreme Court had extended the limitation period for filing cases due to COVID-19 until June 2022.
Read Also:- Groom Penalized for Dowry Demand: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction and Orders ₹3 Lakh Compensation
"Considering the allegations of ill-treatment, including physical abuse and dowry demands, coupled with the COVID-19 situation and Supreme Court directives, we believe that an extension of time for taking cognizance under Section 473 of CrPC is justified."
The court ruled that the FIR against the husband should not be quashed, given the minimal delay caused by extraordinary circumstances. However, it quashed the FIR against the in-laws, citing lack of specific allegations against them.
Read Also:- Allegations Against Husband’s Relatives Require Case-Specific Evaluation: Kerala High Court
"The allegations against the in-laws are vague and omnibus, lacking specific instances of wrongdoing. This appears to be an attempt to implicate family members in a matrimonial dispute."
FIR Against Husband: Not quashed; prosecution can proceed.
FIR Against In-Laws: Quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
Appearance:
Advocate Gaurav Deshpande appeared for the Applicants.
Additional Public Prosecutor GA Kulkarni represented the State.
Advocate Namita Thole was appointed to represent the Wife.
Case Title: Musin Thengade vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 887 of 2023).
