ROMA AHUJA v. THE STATE
Determination of Relevant Date for Computing Criminal Limitation Period - Computation Rests on Date of Filing Complaint or Initiation of Prosecution, Not the Date of Cognizance.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Citation: 2026 INSC 336
Decision Date: 09-04-2026
List of Laws
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; Limitation Law in Criminal Proceedings; Article 226 of the Constitution of India; Doctrine of Binding Precedent
- Facts: The appellant-complainant lodged FIR No. 121 of 2011 on 09.05.2011 alleging offences under Sections 323 and 341 of the Indian Penal Code against Respondent No. 2. The incident involved an altercation outside a court premises where the appellant was allegedly abused and beaten. A cross-FIR (No. 120 of 2011) was also filed by the respondent against the appellant. While the charge-sheet for the cross-FIR was filed promptly, the charge-sheet for FIR No. 121 was filed on 29.05.2012, which was more than one year after the date of the incident. The Trial Court took cognizance and framed charges, but the respondent challenged the proceedings on the ground that Section 468 of the Cr.PC barred cognizance as the charge-sheet was filed beyond the one-year limitation period prescribed for the said offences.
- Procedural Posture: The Delhi High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC and Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, quashed the FIR and consequential proceedings, holding that the bar of limitation was absolute and the date of filing the charge-sheet was beyond the one-year period. The appellant-complainant then approached the Supreme Court of India via Special Leave Petitions.
- Issue: What is the relevant date for the computation of the period of limitation under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - the date of filing the complaint/initiating prosecution or the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance?
- Holding: The relevant date for the purpose of reckoning the limitation period under Section 468, Cr.PC is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of initiation of criminal proceedings, and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance.
- Reasoning: The Court relied heavily on the Constitution Bench judgment in "Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases", which settled the conflict between previous decisions. The Court reasoned that "taking cognizance" is a judicial act over which a complainant has no control. If the date of cognizance were the benchmark, a diligent complainant could be prejudiced by systemic delays or the Magistrate's inaction, which would be unreasonable and potentially unconstitutional. Applying the legal maxim "actus curiae neminem gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no one), the Court affirmed that once a complaint is filed or an FIR is lodged within the limitation period, the prosecution is valid. The Court also rejected the respondent's attempt to distinguish between a "complaint" to a Magistrate and an FIR to the police, clarifying that the date of initiation of proceedings remains the starting point for both.
🔒 For Members Only