{"id":338913,"date":"2025-01-13T16:30:34","date_gmt":"2025-01-13T11:00:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=338913"},"modified":"2025-01-15T11:26:38","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T05:56:38","slug":"interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/","title":{"rendered":"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Delhi High Court:<\/span> In a petition filed for quashing the complaint filed by the respondent under Section 200<\/a>2<\/sup><\/a> of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973<\/a> (‘CrPC’) alleging that the petitioners and other accused persons had committed offences under Sections 323<\/a>3<\/sup><\/a>, 324<\/a>4<\/sup><\/a>, 341<\/a>5<\/sup><\/a>, 452<\/a>6<\/sup><\/a>, 506<\/a>7<\/sup><\/a> and 34<\/a>8<\/sup><\/a> of Penal Code, 1860<\/a> (‘IPC’), Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.*<\/span>, stated that to interpret Section 468(3)<\/a>9<\/sup><\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>, in a manner which considers the relevant offences to be the ones in respect of which summons were issued would lead to absurdity. As on the one hand, the complainant would be expected to be diligent and adhere to the limitation period while filing the complaint, but if the Court subsequently was to drop one of the more serious offences as a consequence of which the limitation period would get reduced, the complaint which was within the limitation period as per the offences alleged in the complaint would now suddenly be rendered time-barred.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that in the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent under Sections 323<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 341<\/a>, 452<\/a>, 506<\/a> and 34<\/a> of IPC<\/a>. The offence which had the most severe punishment was the one under Section 452<\/a> of IPC<\/a>, which provides for imprisonment up to seven years. The Court stated that, since no limitation period was provided for offences punishable with more than three years of imprisonment, therefore, the impugned complaint could not be stated to be barred by limitation. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.<\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The petitioners submitted that the Trial Court erred in not considering that since, the complaint was barred by limitation, it could not have been proceeded with. It was submitted that the alleged incident took place on 05-09-2015, whereas the present complaint was filed on 05-09-2018. Further, the petitioners were summoned only for the offence under Section 323<\/a> of IPC<\/a>, for which the maximum punishment which might be awarded was imprisonment for one year. Thus, as per Section 468(2)(b)<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>, the limitation period for filing the said complaint was one year, and hence, the impugned complaint was time barred.<\/p>\n

However, the respondent submitted that the limitation would have to be calculated with reference to the offences which were alleged in the complaint, and not by the offences with respect to which the petitioners were summoned. One of the offences alleged in the complaint was under Section 452<\/a> of IPC<\/a>, which was punishable with imprisonment up to seven years. Hence, it was submitted that the impugned complaint would not be barred under Section 468<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thus, the issue before the Court in the present case, was whether the limitation period would be calculated with respect to the offences alleged in the complaint or the offences for which the accused have been finally summoned.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law, and Decision<\/h3>\n

The Court after perusal of Section 468<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>, noted that depending on the severity of punishment provided for in the concerned offence, different periods of limitation was provided under Section 468(2)<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>. Further, no limitation period was prescribed for offences punishable with more than three years of punishment.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that Section 468(3)<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>, laid down the manner of computing the period of limitation in case of occurrence of more than one offence. In such cases, the limitation period had to be calculated with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment. The Court further stated that Section 468(3) referred to the offences which might be tried together, and it did not require that the offences must actually have been tried together. Thus, the mention of multiple offences in the complaint which were alleged to have been committed in the same transaction would be sufficient to comply with the requirement of Section 468(3)<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Court relied on Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases<\/span>, (2014) 2 SCC 62<\/a>, wherein it was held that the period of limitation had to be followed from the date of offence to the date of filing of the complaint and not the date of the Court taking cognizance of the offences. The Court stated that to interpret Section 468(3)<\/a> of the CrPC<\/a>, in a manner which considers the relevant offences to be the ones in respect of which summons were issued would lead to absurdity. As on one hand, the complainant would be expected to be diligent and adhere to the limitation period while filing the complaint, but if the Court subsequently dropped one of the more serious offences, then the limitation period would get reduced, and the complaint which was within the limitation period would now suddenly be rendered time-barred.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that reason for the Court to take the date of filing of the complaint as the relevant date for computing period of limitation rather than date of taking cognizance was that in the latter case an otherwise diligent complainant would be left at the mercy of efficiency and quickness of the Court and delay or inaction on the part of the Court would end up deciding whether the complaint was time-barred or not. The Court stated that once a litigant was diligent in approaching the Court, he could not be held responsible for any subsequent delay which occurred on part of the Court.<\/p>\n

The Court stated that it was also worth considering that the method of using the more serious offence as a reference when multiple offences were alleged to have occurred was not restricted to only Section 468<\/a> of CrPC<\/a>. Section 155(4)<\/a> of CrPC<\/a> also states that where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one was cognizable, the case should be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable. The reason being that it would be unreasonable to expect the complainant to approach the Court and police simultaneously for the same incident, just because some of the offences he alleges were non-cognizable.<\/p>\n

The Court observed that in the present case, the complaint was filed by the respondent under Sections 323<\/a>, 324<\/a>, 341<\/a>, 452<\/a>, 506<\/a> and 34<\/a> of IPC<\/a>. The offence which had the most severe punishment was the one under Section 452<\/a> of IPC<\/a>, which provides for imprisonment up to seven years. The Court stated that, since no limitation period was provided for offences punishable with more than three years of imprisonment, therefore, the impugned complaint could not be stated to be barred by limitation. Thus, the Court dismissed the present petition.<\/p>\n

[Sivankutty v. P.K. Patra, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 8606<\/a>, decided on 05-12-2024<\/span>]<\/p>\n

*Judgment authored by- Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n

For the Petitioners:<\/span> Ruchir Batra and Prasanth K., Advocates<\/p>\n

For the Respondent:<\/span> Shiv Chopra, Aadhyaa Khanna and Siddharth Arora, Advocates<\/p>\n

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"penal<\/a><\/p>\n

Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  HERE<\/a><\/h3>\n

\"Code<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n

1.<\/a> Corresponding Section 519<\/a> of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNSS’)<\/p>\n

2.<\/a> Corresponding Section 223<\/a> of BNSS<\/a><\/p>\n

3.<\/a> Corresponding Section 115(2)<\/a> of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023<\/a> (‘BNS’)<\/p>\n

4.<\/a> Corresponding Section 118<\/a> of BNS<\/a><\/p>\n

5.<\/a> Corresponding Section 126(2)<\/a> of BNS<\/a><\/p>\n

6.<\/a> Corresponding Section 333<\/a> of BNS<\/a><\/p>\n

7.<\/a> Corresponding Sections 351(2)<\/a> and 351(3)<\/a> of BNS<\/a><\/p>\n

8.<\/a> Corresponding Section 3(5)<\/a> of BNS<\/a><\/p>\n

9.<\/a> Corresponding Section 514<\/a> of BNSS<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“Limitation seeks to prevent abuse of process by filing vexatious and belated prosecutions. However, at the same time, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘CrPC’) is not blind to the problems faced by litigants and provides for extension of the limitation period in certain cases under Section 4731<\/sup><\/a> of the CrPC. Thus, CrPC also ensures that interests of bona fide complainants are not affected.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67520,"featured_media":314886,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3726,49853,2543,71496,32057,70940,70878,36335,77473,77472,27494],"class_list":["post-338913","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-cognizance","tag-criminal-procedure-code-1973","tag-Delhi_High_Court","tag-justice-manoj-kumar-ohri","tag-limitation-period","tag-nagarik-suraksha-sanhita-2023","tag-nyaya-sanhita-2023","tag-penal-code-1860","tag-relevant-offences","tag-section-4683-crpc","tag-summons"],"yoast_head":"\nInterpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity: DHC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Delhi High Court stated that interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Delhi High Court stated that interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-13T11:00:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-15T05:56:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"591\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Arushi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/\",\"name\":\"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity: DHC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-13T11:00:34+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-15T05:56:38+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\"},\"description\":\"Delhi High Court stated that interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp\",\"width\":887,\"height\":591,\"caption\":\"Delhi High Court\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76\",\"name\":\"Arushi\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Arushi\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity: DHC | SCC Times","description":"Delhi High Court stated that interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint","og_description":"Delhi High Court stated that interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-01-13T11:00:34+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-15T05:56:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":887,"height":591,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Arushi","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Arushi","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/","name":"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity: DHC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","datePublished":"2025-01-13T11:00:34+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-15T05:56:38+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76"},"description":"Delhi High Court stated that interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","width":887,"height":591,"caption":"Delhi High Court"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/01\/13\/interpreting-s-4683-crpc-by-considering-relevant-offences-as-one-where-summons-is-issued-leads-to-absurdity-dhc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Interpreting S.468(3) CrPC in a way which considers relevant offences as one where summons is issued leads to absurdity; Delhi HC dismisses petition to quash complaint"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/ded7dcfe9a971ee0916ce27ee7c09c76","name":"Arushi","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/6b48b1199732c282ba60ff0b2a7076c33917ee6bd9aca6c333a92ceb8fcb6a3d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Arushi"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/arushi\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Delhi-High-Court.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":325787,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/07\/05\/punjab-haryana-hc-determined-govening-law-for-time-barred-petition-filed-under-code-of-criminal-procedure\/","url_meta":{"origin":338913,"position":0},"title":"[BNSS] Punjab and Haryana HC determines governing law for time barred petition filed under CrPC before 30-06-2024 and pending as of 01-07-2024","author":"Editor","date":"July 5, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court was of the view that the petition and the accompanying application seeking an extension of time were filed and registered in the registry of this Court when CrPC, 1973 was in force, hence, the matter would fall under the scope of Section 531(2)(a) and this petition should be\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Condonation of Delay under BNSS","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Condonation-of-Delay-under-BNSS.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Condonation-of-Delay-under-BNSS.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Condonation-of-Delay-under-BNSS.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Condonation-of-Delay-under-BNSS.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358284,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/08\/29\/s-468-crpc-applies-to-penal-proceedings-under-dv-act-jk-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":338913,"position":1},"title":"Bar of limitation period under S. 468 CrPC applies only to penal proceedings under S. 31 DV Act: J&K and Ladakh HC","author":"Editor","date":"August 29, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"In the present case, the petitioner has wrongly equated filing an application under Section 12 of DV Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of a prosecution. However, such application cannot be equated with a complaint within the meaning of Section 200 CrPC or Section 223 of the Bharatiya\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-468-CrPC-applies-to-penal-proceedings-under-DV-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-468-CrPC-applies-to-penal-proceedings-under-DV-Act.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-468-CrPC-applies-to-penal-proceedings-under-DV-Act.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/08\/S.-468-CrPC-applies-to-penal-proceedings-under-DV-Act.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":221639,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/11\/01\/del-limitation-provided-under-s-468-crpc-not-applicable-to-s-138-ni-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":338913,"position":2},"title":"Del HC | Limitation provided under S. 468 CrPC not applicable to S. 138 NI Act","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 1, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a criminal petition wherein the petitioner sought quashing of the summoning order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and also the criminal complaint under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The petitioner represented by Ehraz Zafar, Akash Tyagi and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":311903,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/01\/20\/hp-hc-not-permissible-to-conduct-mini-trial-u-s-482-of-crpc-allegation-constitutes-offence\/","url_meta":{"origin":338913,"position":3},"title":"Not permissible to conduct mini-trial u\/s 482 of CrPC to determine if an allegation constitutes an offence: Himachal Pradesh High Court","author":"Arushi","date":"January 20, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe fact that the Trial Court had not issued the summons under all the Sections mentioned in the complaint and had given the reasons, negate the plea of the petitioners that the Trial Court had not applied its mind while issuing the summons.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"himachal pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283524,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/09\/petition-filed-under-section-1563-crpc-must-satisfy-the-essential-ingredients-to-attract-alleged-offences-supreme-court-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":338913,"position":4},"title":"Petition filed under Section 156(3) CrPC must satisfy the essential ingredients to attract alleged offences: Supreme Court","author":"Editor","date":"February 9, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"The Supreme Court observed that if allegations in the petition are vague and are not specific with respect to the alleged offences, it cannot lead to an order for registration of an FIR and investigation on the accusation of commission of the offences alleged.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-343.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":298036,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/29\/court-giving-further-directions-after-accepting-untrace-report-do-not-amount-to-review-of-order\/","url_meta":{"origin":338913,"position":5},"title":"Court giving further directions after accepting Untrace report does not amount to review of order: Gurgaon Court","author":"Editor","date":"July 29, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Gurgaon Court: In a complaint filed under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (\u2018CrPC\u2019) to take cognizance of offences committed by the vehicle owner under Section 279 and 304-A of Penal Code, 1860 (\u2018IPC\u2019), Vikrant J., admitted the complaint as an application under Section 173(8) of\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"untrace report","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/untrace-report.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/untrace-report.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/untrace-report.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/untrace-report.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338913","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67520"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=338913"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/338913\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/314886"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=338913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=338913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=338913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}