Limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC commences from the last act of cruelty: Bombay HC

Bombay High Court: The applicants filed the present application invoking inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 ³ of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) praying to quash FIR dated 06-01-2023 registered against them with police station Killari, Latur and by way of an amendment for quashing the proceeding pending before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ausa, Latur, for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 323 ⁴, 504 ⁵, 506 ⁶ read with Section 34 ⁷ of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’).

The Division Bench of Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit W. Joshi*, JJ., opined that limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. The Court further opined that it would be in the interest of justice that cognizance of the matter should be taken although the same was barred by limitation. The Court held that Applicant 1, the husband failed to make out any case for interference and thus, refused to quash the FIR against him but quashed the FIR registered against Applicants 2 to 4.

Background

Respondent 2-wife got married around the year 2011 and for around three years after the marriage till the birth of their girl child, the relations were cordial. Thereafter, the wife claimed that her husband started raising doubt about her character and he used to beat her under the influence of liquor and that he would insist upon her to get Rs 2,00,000 from her parents for the purpose of purchasing tools and apparatus for starting plumbing business. It was further alleged that when her parents had intervened, he threatened that he would kill her if she did not bring the amount from her parents and that he would not cohabit with her unless she brings the said amount.

The wife stated that since her husband did not take her back from her parental home, she lodged a complaint with the Women Grievance Redressal Cell, Latur on 11-11-2022 and since the applicants did not come forward for reconciliation, she lodged the FIR on 06-01-2023, as per which the last wrongful act was dated 20-10-2019.

Counsel for the applicants deserved to be quashed as it was filed beyond the period of limitation and the wife had taken resort to the criminal proceedings to settle matrimonial dispute with her husband. Whereas respondents submitted that the offence under Section 498-A of IPC was a continuing offence and therefore, the FIR could not be quashed on the ground of limitation.

Analysis, Law, and Decision

The Court opined that the allegations that Applicants 2 to 4, i.e, the father-in-law, the brother-in-law, and the sister-in-law demanded Rs 2,00,000 along with her husband and had abused her, beaten her, and did not offer food to her to coerce and pressurize her to fulfill the demand, were clearly general, vague, and omnibus. The Court stated that the allegations against them were an attempt to implicate family members of the husband in matrimonial dispute inter-se between wife and husband.

The Court opined that crime never dies was one of the basic principles of criminal law, that is, the right of state to prosecute an offender was not lost with passage of time. Section 468 of CrPC creates an exception to this general principle of law and categorizes certain offences based on the punishment provided and fixes period of limitation for taking cognizance of such offences. The Court stated that the limitation was prescribed for offences punishable with imprisonment of up to three years and Section 498-A was an offence punishable with maximum sentence of three years. Thus, Section 468 of CrPC applied to Section 498-A of IPC.

The Court opined that a conjoint reading of Sections 468 and 473 ⁸ of CrPC indicate that although the limitation was prescribed for taking cognizance of certain offences, time could be extended in cases where either the delay was properly explained or when it was in the interest of justice to take cognizance of the matter despite the same being barred by limitation.

The Court opined that although the offence under Section 498-A was a continuing wrong, it would not mean that limitation would continue to run perennially. The Court relied on Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas, (1999) 4 SCC 690, in which it was stated that in case of offence under Section 498-A, a new starting point of limitation started on every occasion when the wrong was committed and the period of limitation needed to be computed from the last such wrong.

The Court thus opined that limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. The offence under Section 498-A of IPC was a continuing offence which implied that each act of cruelty would offer a new starting point of limitation. The Court stated that the limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A did not continue for an indefinite period and such interpretation would render Section 468 of CrPC nugatory/otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of IPC which did not appear to be the intention of legislature.

The Court after considering the allegation by 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, opined that the case was made out for extension of time for taking cognizance of the offence under Section 473 of CrPC. The Court further opined that it would be in the interest of justice that cognizance of the matter should be taken although the same was barred by limitation and need not be remitted to the Magistrate to decide the issue of limitation.

The Court held that the husband failed to make out any case for interference and thus, refused to quash the FIR against him but quashed the FIR registered against Applicants 2 to 4.

[Musin Babulal Thengade v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 887 of 2023, decided on 29-01-2025]

*Judgment authored by: Justice Rohit W. Joshi

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Applicants: Gaurav L. Deshpande, Advocate

For the Respondents: G. A. Kulkarni, APP for Respondent 1-State; Namita Thole, Advocate for Respondent 2 (Appointed)