Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submitted that even though four years have been lapsed from the date of registration of the FIR, under Section 473 of Cr.P.C., the prosecution can seek for condonation of delay in filing the charge sheet and thereby, at this stage, the FIR cannot be quashed.

5.Heard both sides and perused the record.

16.In view of the above, since the charge sheet has not been filed even beyond three years of the alleged date of occurrence, the FIR can be quashed on the ground of limitation.

17.However, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent Police submitted that there is a possibility for the respondent police to seek condonation of delay under Section 473 Cr.P.C.

18.Section 473 Cr.P.C. runs as under:-

“Extension of period of limitation in certain cases:
Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, any Court may take cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation, if it is satisfied on the facts and in the circumstances of the case that the delay has been properly explained or that it is necessary so to do in the interests of justice.”

19.Section 473 Cr.P.C. applies where the Police files charge sheet after expiry of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. but, it does not mean that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.(MD) No.15712 of 2023 the Police can withhold the filing of the charge sheet any number of years, even after expiry of limitation. The benefit of Section 473 Cr.P.C. can be availed, while filing the charge sheet, but the Police cannot circumvent Section 468 Cr.P.C. on the ground that they filed condonation of delay petition under Section 473 Cr.P.C. Further, it is the discretion of the learned Judge concerned, whenever an application is filed under Section 473 Cr.P.C. to grant or refuse to condone the delay. Hence, the contention of respondent Police that since Section 473 Cr.P.C. is available, the FIR cannot be quashed on the basis of Section under 468 Cr.P.C., is not convincing.