ROMA AHUJA versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2026] 4 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 09-04-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 4 S.C.R. 459 : 2026 INSC 336
Roma Ahuja 
v. 
The State and Another
(Criminal Appeal No(s). 1831-1832 of 2026)
09 April 2026
[Prashant Kumar Mishra and N.V. Anjaria,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
What would be the relevant date for computation of the period 
of limitation, whether it is the date when the criminal complaint 
is filed or the date when the Court/Magistrate takes cognizance.
Headnotes†
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.468 – Penal Code, 1860 – 
ss.323, 341 r/w. s.34 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of 
the period of limitation – High Court quashed the FIR on the 
ground of limitation holding that the date of taking cognizance 
by the Magistrate is relevant and as cognizance was taken 
after a period of one year, the bar of limitation u/s.468 was 
attracted – Respondent inter alia contended that the principle 
laid down in Constitution Bench judgment in Sarah Mathew 
will not apply as it was a case where the complaint was filed 
before the Magistrate, whereas in the instant case, the FIR 
was filed and subsequently, the Magistrate took cognizance:
Held: Rejected – Whether the limitation period would be reckoned 
from the date of filing of the complaint or from the date of taking 
cognizance, is no longer res integra in view of the Constitution 
Bench judgment in Sarah Mathew’s case – The computing point 
of limitation for the purpose of s.468 is held to be the date of filing 
complaint- the date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Whether 
the case belongs to one instituted before the Magistrate u/s.173 or 
it is upon a complaint filed before the police, what matters is the 
date of initiation of criminal proceedings – Criminal proceedings 
can be said to have been initiated in both categories of complaint 
when the complaint is filed before the Magistrate or FIR is lodged 
before the police, as the case may be – It remains a complaint 
made either to the Magistrate or to the police to become the starting 
* Author
460
[2026] 4 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
point of initiation of criminal proceedings – The relevant date as 
held by Sarah Mathew would be the date of filing of complaint or, 
differently stated, the date of initiation of criminal proceedings – As 
Courts are bound by the law of precedent and to follow the law 
laid down in the binding judgment of the Constitution Bench, the 
lawyers are also expected to respect the strong-operated precedent 
emanating from a judgment holding the field unless exceptional 
grounds exist to distinguish the decision are available – Merely for 
the purpose of demonstrating the argumentative skill, the lawyers 
ought not to eat up the valuable public time of the court by making 
the submissions, which are worthless against binding precedent – 
High Court erred in quashing the FIR on the ground of limitation, 
taking an erroneous view that the date of taking cognizance by 
the Magistrate is relevant – As held by the Constitution Bench 
in Sarah Mathew, the relevant date for the purpose of reckoning 
the limitation u/s.468 is the date of filing of complaint or the date 
of initiation of criminal proceedings – Impugned order set aside – 
Professional Ethics. [Paras 5.2.5, 7.2, 8.1, 10, 11]
Professional Ethics – Advocates – Respecting the binding 
precedents and conceding their applicability in a case, duty 
of advocates:
Held: As disclosure of honest and full facts before the Court is part 
of the fair conduct on the part of lawyers, respecting the binding 
precedence of the judgments and conceding its applicability in a 
case is also a duty in fairness to be discharged by the advocates in 
conducting their case – They are part of the system of administration 
of justice and are not expected to breach the rules of the game to 
argue against settled principles or contrary to well settled law, just 
for the sake of doing it – Giving up an argument where a point of 
law is already decided is a professional virtue – It is part of ethics 
in professional conduct before the Court. [Para 8]
Legal maxims – Importance in the interpretational process:
Held: Legal maxims which trace their origin and birth in the 
experience of the older times and emerge in the progress of 
civilization, blend reasonableness, wisdom, truthfulness and 
objectivity, to be much useful in developing the legal concepts out of 
the codified law and in interpreting the statutory provisions – They 
play role of enriching the interpretational contents and adding to 
the jurisprudential

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.