Final Order 1

Order Details: Order Below EX 1
Pdf Text: Court Case No. 3848/PS/2024
ORDER BELOW EXH.10
Perused application and say. Heard both sides.
2. Offence under section 279 of Indian Penal Code is punishable
with 6 months imprisonment or fine, and offence under section 338 of
Indian Penal Code is punishable with 2 years imprisonment or fine. The
offence under aforesaid sections of the Indian Penal Code is committed
on 09.06.2020. Charge-sheet is filed on 16.07.2024. Thus, charge-sheet
is filed after 4 years. Statutory period for filing charge-sheet under
section 468 of Cr.P.C. for offences punishable up to 3 years is 3 years.
But, the charge-sheet in present case is filed beyond the period of 3
years. Section 473 of Cr.P.C. provided for taking cognizance even after
prescribed period of limitation, if delay is properly explained or if the
court think that, it is necessary to do in the interests of justice.
3. Ld. APP submitted that, court has inherent jurisdiction to take
cognizance even in the cases which are filed beyond the limitation
period. On the other hand, Advocate for the accused submitted that, the
accused is lady and at the time of commission of an offence she was just
23 years old. The offence does not falls under the category of moral
turpitude. It is even not falls under the category of heinous offence. It is
just an accident. It is just an error of judgment. He, therefore, relied
upon following judgments and prayed for this case be disposed for out of
limitation.
I. In case 1981 SCALE (1)619, AIR SC 1054, State of Punjad Vs.
Sarwan Singh, it is held that, the object of the Cr.P.C. is putting a
bar of limitation on prosecution not to file charge-sheet after
limitation to prevent abuse of process of law.
1/2
-- 1 of 2 --
Court Case No. 3848/PS/2024
II. In Misc. Cri. Case No. 29918 of 2024, Ajay Tandon Vs. The State
of Madhya Pradesh, the facts in the cited case are distinguished
with the case in hand. Hence, not applicable.
III. In Cri. Revn. No.1973 of 1981, Moti Pathak Vs. State of U.P., it is
held that, Magistrate cannot takes cognizance even after bar of
limitation of 3 years.
4. After having gone through the facts of case, it appears that, the
I.O. has delayed in filing of charge-sheet by 01 year. There is no
explanation as to why he filed charge-sheet after lapse of limitation by
01 year. In the present case, charge-sheet have to be filed filed within 3
years from the date of registration of F.I.R. But, after 4 years charge-
sheet is filed. As offence is not of serious nature. It is not fall under moral
turpitude. Even, it is not fall under category of heinous offence. The
accused was at the time of commission of offence just 23 years old girl.
The accident happened just because of error of judgment and the fact
that, there is no explanation for delay for filing charge-sheet. Hence, this
case stands disposed off as charge-sheet filed with 01 year delay. The
case is dismissed. Accused is discharged.
MUMBAI (R. T. Ingle)
DATE – 22.06.2026 J.M.F.C., 12TH COURT, BANDRA, MUMBAI
2/2
-- 2 of 2 --