AMRITLAL versus SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 1 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 28-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
[2022] 1 S.C.R. 721
721
AMRITLAL
v.
SHANTILAL SONI & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal No. 301 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 28, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND VIKRAM NATH, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 468 – Bar to cognizance
after lapse of period of limitation – Relevant date for computation
of limitation period u/s. 468 – Held: Is the date of filing of the
complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date
on which the magistrate takes the cognizance of the offence – On
facts, the High Court erred in assuming that the date of taking
cognizance is decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the
written complaint was indeed filed by the complainant well within
the period of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of
commission of offence – Thus, the order passed by the High Court
is set aside.
Precedent – Binding effect of – Held: Decision of the
Constitution Bench of this Court cannot be questioned on certain
suggestions about different interpretation of the provisions under
consideration – Binding effect of a decision of this Court does not
depend upon whether a particular argument was considered or not,
provided the point with reference to which the argument is advanced,
was actually decided therein.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 For the purpose of computing the period of
limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date
of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution
and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance of the
offence. The High Court has made a fundamental error in
assuming that the date of taking cognizance i.e., 04.12.2012 is
decisive of the matter, while ignoring the fact that the written
complaint was indeed filed by the appellant well within the period
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 1 S.C.R.
of limitation of 3 years with reference to the date of commission
of offence i.e., 04.10.2009. Thus, the impugned order is set aside.
[Paras 7, 10][726-C-E; 727-B]
1.2 The counsel for the respondents submitted that Sarah
Mathew’s case requires reconsideration on the ground that some
of the factors related with Chapter XXXVI CrPC have not been
considered by this Court. A decision of the Constitution Bench
of this Court cannot be questioned on certain suggestions about
different interpretation of the provisions under consideration. It
remains trite that the binding effect of a decision of this Court
does not depend upon whether a particular argument was
considered or not, provided the point with reference to which
the argument is advanced, was actually decided therein. This is
apart from the fact that a bare reading of the decision in Sarah
Mathew’s case would make it clear that every relevant aspect
concerning Chapter XXXVI CrPC has been dilated upon by the
Constitution Bench in necessary details. As a necessary corollary,
the submissions made with reference to other decision of this
Court, which proceeded on its own facts, are of no avail to the
respondents. The submissions of the respondents are rejected.
[Paras 8, 9][726-E-F; 726-F-H; 727-A]
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
by its director Dr. K.M. Cherian & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC
62 : [2013] 12 SCR 674 – followed.
State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (1981) 3 SCC 34 :
[1981] 3 SCR 349; Somawanti & Ors. v. The State of
Punjab & Ors. AIR 1963 SC 151 : [1963] SCR 774
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2013] 12 SCR 674
followed
Para 8, 9
[1981] 3 SCR 349
referred to
Para 4
[1963] SCR 774
referred to
Para 9
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
301 of 2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.03.2019 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Misc. Criminal Case No.26287 of 2018
Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Advs. for the Appellant.
Mukul Singh, DAG, Divyakant Lahoti, Parikshit Ahuja, Ms.
Praveena Bisht, Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Kartik Lahoti,
Ms. Shivangi Malhotra, Sunny Choudhary, Ramesh Thakur, Harsh
Parashar, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DINESH MAHESHWARI, J.
Leave granted.
The order under challenge in the present appeal is dated
06.03.2019, as passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at
Indore in Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 26287 of 2018.
By the order impugned, the High Court has, in exercise of its
powers under Sections 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 19731, set
aside the order dated 20.02.2018 passed by the Court of Add
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.