FIR for police misconduct quashed as prosecution was barred by limitation under Section 468 CrPC.

The applicant, who was serving as the In-charge Police Inspector at Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station, allegedly failed to act upon a written application submitted by Taraben on 11 May 2010, despite the alleged disclosure of an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

It was alleged that the applicant thereby committed a wilful breach or neglect of his legal duties.

Pursuant to an order dated 5 June 2012 passed by the Additional and Special Judge, Bharuch, directing the District Superintendent of Police to take action under Section 145(2)(c) and (d) of the Gujarat Police Act, FIR C.R. No. II-60/2016 was registered on 12 April 2016 before Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station—approximately four years after the said order.

The applicant invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, relying on a coordinate Bench decision dated 2 September 2024 that had quashed the same FIR against co-accused on the grounds of delay and limitation.

Whether the FIR and consequential proceedings against the applicant were liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC because of the unexplained delay of approximately four years in registering the FIR.

Whether prosecution for the alleged offences under Section 145(2)(c) and (d) of the Gujarat Police Act was barred by the limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC.

Whether continuation of the proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law warranting exercise of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction.

The Court applied Section 482 CrPC, which preserves the High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

Section 468 CrPC bars a court from taking cognizance after expiry of the prescribed limitation period: six months where the offence is punishable with fine only, one year where imprisonment does not exceed one year, and three years where imprisonment exceeds one year but does not exceed three years.

Section 145(2)(c) and (d) of the Gujarat Police Act penalises a police officer’s wilful breach or neglect of a legal provision, rule or order, or violation of duty where no other punishment is prescribed.

The Court also relied on the principle that statutory limitation governing cognizance is mandatory and serves the constitutional guarantee of a fair and speedy trial under Article 21.

It followed the coordinate Bench’s decision in Special Criminal Application No. 3560 of 2016, which had quashed the same FIR against the co-accused on substantially identical grounds.

The Court found that the FIR was registered nearly four years after the order directing initiation of proceedings, with no explanation for the delay in the FIR itself.

It accepted the coordinate Bench’s determination that the alleged offences attracted the limitation bar under Section 468 CrPC and that cognizance was therefore impermissible.

Although Section 145(2) as reproduced in the judgment refers to punishment extending to three years, the Court adopted the coordinate Bench’s characterization that the maximum punishment was six months and consequently held the proceedings to be barred by limitation.

Since the applicant’s case arose from the same FIR and the State could not distinguish or dislodge the coordinate Bench’s reasoning, continuation of the prosecution was held to constitute an abuse of the process of law.

It held that the unexplained delay and the statutory bar under Section 468 CrPC justified intervention under Section 482 CrPC.

FIR C.R. No. II-60/2016 dated 12 April 2016, registered at Bharuch City ‘A’ Division Police Station for offences under Section 145(2)(c) and (d) of the Gujarat Police Act, together with all consequential proceedings, was quashed and set aside insofar as they concerned the applicant.

The application was allowed and the Rule was made absolute.