ARUN VYAS AND ANR. versus ANITA VYAS

Citation: [1999] 3 S.C.R. 719 · Decided: 14-05-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. VENKATASWAMI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

ARUN VY AS AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ANITA VYAS 
MAY 14, 1999 
[K.VENKATASWAMY AND S.S.M. QUADRI, JJ.] 
B 
•. 
Criminal Law: 
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Sections 190(1) and 473. 
c 
Offence-Discharge of accused-After taking cognizance of-
Complaint-Under Section 190(1)-For offence under S.406 JPC"-Filed 
beyond period of limitatio'n--No explanation for delay-Magistrate ordered 
investigation by Police-Police submitted charge-sheet (final· report)-
Magistrate took cognizance qf the offence and fixed a date for framing D 
charges-But on that date discharged the accused on the ground that 
complaint was barred by limitation-However, High Court set aside the 
order of discharge-Permissibility of-Held: Under such circumstances 
Magistrate rightly disr:harged the accused-Therefore, High Court not correct 
in setting aside the order of discharge-Penal Code, 1860, S.406. 
Sections 468 and 473-0ffence-Discharge of accused-After taking 
cognizance of-Complaint-Under Section 190(1)-For offence under S.498-
E 
A /PC-Filed beyond period of limitation-NO explanation for the delay-
Wife allegedly beaten by husband and in-laws and driven out of !1'atrimonial 
home on 13.101988-Complaint filed on 18.10.1995-Police filed charge-
sheet after investigation on 22. 12. 1995-Magistrate took cognizance of the F 
offence and fixed a date for framing charges-But on that date discharged 
the accused on the ground that complaint was barred by limitation-However 
High Court set aside the order of discharge-Permissibility of-Held: Offence 
under S. 498-A is a continuing offence in view of S.468(3)-Hence, period of 
limitation for the offence commence.don 13. 10.1988 and ended on 12. 10.1991 G 
under S.468(2) (c)-The complaint, therefore, is barred by limitation-
However, the Magistrate should have liberally construed the provisions of 
S.473 in favour of the wife-But the Magistrate did not advert to the necessity 
of taking cognizance of the offence in the interest of justice on the facts and 
in the C-ircumstances of the case-Hence, his order of discharge of the accused, 
no sustainable-High Court right in setting aside the order of discharge- H 
719 
720 
SUPREME. COURT REPORTS 
[ 1999) 3 S.C.R. 
A Magistrate directed to consider the question of limitation under Section 473. 
Chapter XXXVl-Sections 467 to 473-0bject of-Explained. 
Penal Code, 1860: 
B 
Section 498-A-Offence under-Nature of-Held: is a continuing offence 
· in view of S.468(3) Cr. P.C. 
Words and Phrases: 
"Jn the interest of justice '.'-Meaning of-In the context of Section 47 3 
C of the Criminar Procedure Code, 1973. 
' 
D 
E 
In this appeal, the following questions arose before this court. 
(i) Whether the Magistrate can discharge an accused after taking 
cognizance of an offence by him but before the trial of th.e case; and 
(ii) Whether the Magistrate was right in discharging the appellants on 
the ground that the complaint was barred by limitation under Section 468 
Cr. P.C. 
Allowing the appeal in part, this Court 
HELD : 1. The object of having Chapter XXXVI in the Criminal 
Procedure Code, 1973 is to protect persons from prosecution based on stale 
grievances and complaints, which may turn out to be vexatious. The reason 
for engrafting rule of limitation is that due to long lapse of time necessary 
evidence will be lost and persons prosecuted will be placed in a defenceless 
F position. This may even result in miscarriage of justice. At the same time 
it is necessary to ensure that due to delays on the part of the investigating 
and prosecuting agencies and the application of rules of limitation the 
criminal justice system is not rendered toothless and. ineffective and 
perpetrators of crime .are not placed in an advantageous position. The 
G Parliament obviously taking notes of various aspects, classified offences into 
two categories, having regard to the gravity of offences, on the basis of the 
punishment prescribed for them. Grave offences for which punishment 
prescribed is imprisonment for a term exceeding three years are not brought 
within the ambit of Chapter XXXVI. The period of limitation is prescribed 
only for offences for which punishment specified is imprisonment for a term 
H not exceeding three years and even in such cases wide discretion is given 
.: 
/, 
ARUNVYASv.ANITA VYAS 
721 
· to the Court in the matter of taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry A 
ofthe period of limitation. [725-A-D) 
2.1. The essence of the offence in Section 498-A the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.