Statutory limitation under Section 471 DMC Act applies only to filing complaints, not completing investigations.

The Delhi High Court initiated this Suo Motu Criminal Reference following an order by the Metropolitan Magistrate, Patiala House Courts, in the case State v. Amir Singh.

In that case, an FIR was registered on 02.05.2015 based on a complaint by the Deputy Commissioner, SDMC, regarding unauthorized construction observed during an inspection on 16.04.2015.

The chargesheet was filed on 30.11.2016, leading the accused to seek discharge under Section 258 Cr.P.C., arguing the prosecution was barred by the six-month limitation period prescribed under Section 471 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation (DMC) Act, 1957.

The Referral Court noted a lack of judicial consistency on whether the "complaint" mentioned in the DMC Act refers to the FIR/information or the final police report.

Section 471 of the DMC Act, which mandates that no person is liable for punishment unless a "complaint" is made to a Municipal Magistrate within six months of the offence or its knowledge.

Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C., which subjects the investigation of special law offences to the Cr.P.C. unless otherwise provided.

Section 466A of the DMC Act, which deems Section 332 offences as cognizable for investigation purposes.

Precedents such as Deepa Singh v. State and Abhay Tyagi v. State established that while the Cr.P.C. applies to investigations, the special limitation periods in the DMC Act prevail over the general limits in Section 468 Cr.P.C.

The Court reasoned that Section 471 of the DMC Act is a "substantial and mandatory" bar to punishment, not merely a procedural guideline.

It distinguished between the "filing of a complaint" (which stops the limitation clock) and the "taking of cognizance" or "filing of a chargesheet" (governed by the Cr.P.C.).

The Court clarified that since Section 469 and 470 designate "Municipal Magistrates" exclusively for DMC offences, sending an FIR to a general "Ilaqa Magistrate" does not satisfy Section 471 unless that Magistrate is specifically appointed as a Municipal Magistrate.

The Court held that "information" regarding the offence can be transmitted to the Municipal Magistrate via the police under Section 157 Cr.P.C., and if done within six months, it satisfies the statutory requirement even if the subsequent investigation takes longer.

Transmission of an FIR to a general jurisdictional Magistrate is not sufficient compliance if a separate Municipal Magistrate has been appointed.

The Court ruled that non-compliance with this six-month window is not a curable defect and ipso facto vitiates the entire prosecution, as the period of limitation under Section 471 is mandatory and lacks a provision for condonation.