In a significant ruling on criminal procedure, the Supreme Court has clarified how limitation periods should be calculated in criminal cases. The Court held that the relevant date is when the complaint or prosecution is initiated—not when the Magistrate takes cognizance.
Background of the Case
The case arose from cross-FIRs filed after an altercation outside a court in Delhi in May 2011. The appellant, Roma Ahuja, alleged assault and wrongful restraint against the accused, an advocate.
Read also:- Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order on Extraordinary Pension in Uttarakhand Doctor Killing Case
An FIR was registered under Sections 323 (causing hurt) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code. While a charge-sheet in the cross-case was filed within time, the charge-sheet in this FIR was filed after more than one year.
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR in 2025, holding that it was barred by limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), as the charge-sheet was filed beyond the prescribed one-year period.
The central question before the Supreme Court was:
Should limitation be calculated from the date of filing of the complaint/FIR, or from the date when the Magistrate takes cognizance?
The bench, led by Justice N.V. Anjaria & Prashant Kumar Mishra, closely examined the scheme of limitation under Chapter XXXVI of the CrPC.
Referring to the Constitution Bench judgment in Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, the Court reaffirmed that:
“For computing limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or institution of prosecution.”
The Court emphasized that taking cognizance is an act of the court, which may be delayed due to various reasons beyond the control of the complainant.
“A diligent complainant cannot be prejudiced due to delays attributable to the court,” the bench observed.
It further noted that interpreting limitation based on the date of cognizance would create uncertainty and unfairness, as litigants have no control over judicial timelines.
The Court explained that for offences punishable with imprisonment up to one year, the limitation period is one year. However, this period applies to the initiation of proceedings-not to subsequent judicial actions.
Read also:- Madras High Court Shields Lawyer from Defamation Case, Allows Trial Against Co-Accused
The bench relied on established legal principles, including the idea that an act of the court should not harm a party.
It also clarified that earlier conflicting rulings had been settled by the Constitution Bench, making the law clear and binding.
Setting aside the Delhi High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held that the FIR could not be quashed on the ground of limitation merely because the charge-sheet was filed late.
Since the FIR and initiation of proceedings were within the limitation period, the bar under Section 468 CrPC did not apply.
The appeals were allowed, and the criminal proceedings were restored.
Case Details
Case Title: Roma Ahuja v. The State and Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal Nos. 1831–1832 of 2026
Judge: Justice N.V. Anjaria & Prashant Kumar Mishra
Decision Date: APRIL 09, 2026
