Bombay HC: Limitation for Prosecuting Under Section 498A IPC Begins From Last Incident of Cruelty

Post By 24law
February 9, 2025

Pranav B Prem

The Bombay High Court has ruled that the limitation period for prosecuting an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) shall commence from the last act of cruelty. The Court clarified that while the offence of cruelty under Section 498A is a continuing offence, the limitation for prosecution under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not extend indefinitely. A division bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Rohit W. Joshi held that every act of cruelty would give rise to a new starting point for the limitation period. However, if the prosecution is initiated beyond the prescribed limitation, cognizance can only be taken if the delay is either properly explained or if it serves the interest of justice under Section 473 CrPC.

Background of the Case

The Court was hearing a plea filed by Musin Babulal Thengade and his family members, seeking to quash an FIR lodged against them on January 6, 2023, at the Killari police station, Latur. The allegations in the FIR, made by Thengade's wife, related to an incident of cruelty that took place on October 20, 2019. While the Court found no sufficient material to proceed against the husband's family members and quashed the proceedings against them, it considered the FIR against the husband in light of the limitation period under Section 468 CrPC. The husband contended that since the maximum punishment under Section 498A IPC is three years, the limitation period for taking cognizance of the offence should also be three years, which had lapsed before the FIR was lodged in January 2023.

"The cognisance of the offence is taken after the prescribed period of limitation. The limitation of three years should be counted from October 2019, which is last alleged incident of ill-treatment. Even the complaint before the Women Grievance Redressal Cell is filed beyond the period of three years. The FIR is filed thereafter beyond the period of limitation. Therefore, filing of the charge sheet and taking the cognisance of the offence is also beyond prescribed period of limitation," the husband argued.

Court’s Observations on Limitation

The High Court acknowledged that Section 498A IPC constitutes a continuing offence but clarified that the limitation period does not continue indefinitely. The judges stated: "We are of the opinion that limitation for offence punishable under Section 498-A of the IPC shall commence from the last act of cruelty. Offence under Section 498-A of the IPC is a continuing offence implies that each act of cruelty would offer new starting point of limitation. Limitation for prosecution under Section 498-A does not continue for indefinite period. Such interpretation will render Section 468 of the CrPC nugatory or otiose for the purpose of Section 498-A of the IPC, which does not appear to be the intention of legislature." The Court further noted that if the legislature had intended to exclude Section 498A from the scope of Section 468 CrPC, an express provision would have been made to that effect.

Extension of Limitation Due to COVID-19

The Court observed that although the last alleged incident of cruelty occurred in October 2019, the nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic began in March 2020. Taking judicial notice of the Supreme Court’s orders extending the limitation period for filing cases until June 2022, the bench concluded that the prosecution was within the extended limitation period. "Having regard to the facts of the present case, i.e. allegation by the 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, we are of the opinion that the case is made out for extension of time for taking cognisance of the offence under Section 473 of the CrPC," the Court said.

The judges emphasized that the delay caused in the matter was less than a month if counted from the date of the complaint before the Women Grievance Redressal Cell in November 2022 and around two and a half months from the date of the FIR. Even from the date of the charge sheet, the delay was only three months and ten days. "Having regard to the extent of delay and Covid-19 situation coupled with principles laid down by the Supreme Court, we are of the opinion that the matter need not be remitted to the Magistrate to decide the issue of limitation. The accused husband has failed to make out any case for interference. We do not deem it appropriate to quash the FIR against him on the point of limitation," the bench held.

Quashing of FIR Against Family Members

While refusing to quash the FIR against the husband, the Court quashed the FIR against his family members, noting that the allegations against them were vague and appeared to be an attempt to implicate them in a matrimonial dispute. "The allegation, apart from being vague, general and unspecific, is also omnibus. The allegation is clearly an attempt to implicate family members of the husband in matrimonial dispute inter-se between wife and husband. The present case offers another unfortunate example of wife resorting to over implication," the Court remarked.

Verdict

The Bombay High Court reaffirmed that the limitation for prosecuting offences under Section 498A IPC begins from the last act of cruelty. While extending the limitation in this case due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court emphasized that Section 468 CrPC remains applicable to such cases, and its provisions cannot be rendered meaningless.