Safiya Malik

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice V.G. Arun quashed criminal proceedings pending against an individual accused of promoting enmity between religious groups through a social media post. The Court found that the cognizance in the matter was taken beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The final report, having been filed after a significant delay and without any application for condonation under Section 473 CrPC, was held to be time-barred. The Court concluded that further prosecution would amount to abuse of the process of court and accordingly allowed the petition for quashing.

The matter arose from Crime No. 1846 of 2016 registered at the Ernakulam Town North Police Station against the petitioner, who was accused of committing an offence under Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code. The allegation was that the petitioner had posted a derogatory comment on his Facebook page with the intention of promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion.

Also Read: “Qualifications Must Be Possessed by the Date Appointed in the Rules or the Advertisement”: Supreme Court Sets Aside Calcutta High Court Order, Upholds Eligibility of D.El.Ed. Candidates

The crime was registered on 22.11.2016. However, despite the registration, there was a substantial delay in the completion of the investigation and filing of the final report. The petitioner approached the High Court by filing Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 8681 of 2024, seeking to quash the final report and all proceedings pursuant thereto on the ground that cognizance had been taken beyond the limitation period.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the offence under Section 153A IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend up to three years. As per Section 468(2)(c) CrPC, the limitation period for such an offence is three years. It was argued that even taking the earliest date of final report submission as 28.02.2020, the same was filed beyond the limitation period, which expired on 21.11.2019.

The prosecution submitted that the final report was filed in 2020 but was returned due to defects, and that the delay in re-submitting the report occurred due to the misplacement of the case diary, which took time to retrieve. The Public Prosecutor contended that the final report should be treated as filed within time.

In view of the dispute regarding the exact date of filing, the Court called for a report from the jurisdictional Magistrate. As per the Magistrate’s report, the final report was first filed on 28.02.2020. It was returned on 11.03.2020 due to non-submission of the seizure mahazar and prosecution sanction. The report was re-submitted only on 03.02.2023, and cognizance was taken on 07.02.2023 by registering the case as C.C. No. 56 of 2023.

The petitioner submitted that no application for condonation of delay under Section 473 CrPC was filed either with the initial submission or during resubmission of the final report.

On these facts, the petitioner argued that even assuming 28.02.2020 as the relevant date, it would fall outside the three-year limitation prescribed under the statute, rendering the entire prosecution void for want of limitation compliance.

The Court recorded that “the offence under Section 153A IPC being punishable with imprisonment up to three years only, the final report ought to have been filed within three years from the date of registration of the crime.”

It further stated: “Even if 28.02.2020 is taken as the date of filing of final report, that is also beyond the three year period prescribed in Section 468 of Cr.P.C.”

The Court clarified the legal position on incomplete final reports, stating: “It is settled law that final report filed hastily without completing the investigation or appending the relevant documents, cannot be treated as final report filed in accordance with Section 173 of the Code.”

The judgment acknowledged the prosecution’s submission regarding misplaced case diaries but held that “no application for condonation of delay, as contemplated under Section 473 of Cr.P.C, was filed along with the final report.”

On the issue of cognizance, the Court observed: “Cognizance was taken only on 07.02.2023, much after the period of limitation.”

Also Read: "J&K HC: Officers Cannot Claim Seniority from Vacancies in Previous Years, Only Actual Promotion Date Counts; Rule 15(4) of 2008 Rules Struck Down"

Considering the procedural lapses and the statutory bar under Section 468 CrPC, the Court concluded: “Continuance of the proceedings will be an abuse of process of court.”

The Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case and quashed the final report and all proceedings arising therefrom. It held:

“In the result, the Criminal Miscellaneous Case is allowed. Annexure A2 final report in Crime No.1846 of 2016 of Ernakulam Town North Police Station and all further proceedings in C.C No.56 of 2023 on the files of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, as against the petitioner, is quashed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Ms. Abhiremya Raj R.B., Advocate; Mr. S. Jayant, Advocate; Mr. Govind V.P., Advocate; Ms. Shahanaz B., Advocate; Ms. Gayathri R., Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. M.C. Ashi, Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Himaval Maheshwara Bhadarananda v. State of Kerala & Another
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:20451
Case Number: CRL.MC No. 8681 of 2024
Bench: Justice V.G. Arun

[Read/Download order]