Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation
Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deals with bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation. Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation. The Act came into force on 01 Apr 1974. Repealed by section 531 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (46 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.
(2) The period of limitation shall be-
(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only 1 Provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to certain economic offences, see the Economic Offences (Inapplicability of Limitation) Act, 1974 (12 of 1974), s. 2 end Sch.
(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;
(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
[(3) For the purposes of this section, the period of limitation in relation to offences which may be tried together, shall be determined with reference to the offence which is punishable with the more severe punishment or, as the case may be, the most severe punishment.]
Section 468, The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974).
Now in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita
BNSS 514 Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation Close, with changes 84%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 1
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Judgment of Main Case order-22.pdf 2013-11-26 (not same-date order-23 ROP). Five-judge Constitution Bench, Crl A 829/2005. For CrPC 468, limitation for taking cognizance runs from the date of filing the complaint / institution of prosecution, not the later date on which the Magistrate actually takes cognizance under s.190; court delay after a timely complaint cannot bar the prosecution. Overrules the Krishna Pillai line. Map 190 (the cognizance event) and 468 (the bar) plus BNSS 210/514.
On this section: s.468 bar is computed from filing of the complaint / institution of prosecution, not the later date of cognizance.
-
Udai Shankar Awasthi vs State of U. P
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a criminal complaint is filed many years after an alleged instantaneous offence (not a continuing offence), beyond the prescribed limitation period under Section 468 CrPC, without plausible explanation for delay, by a litigant who has exhausted all civil and arbitral remedies and lost therein, and where earlier complaints on substantially identical facts have been dismissed on merits, and where material facts such as earlier dismissals have been suppressed, the complaint constitutes an abuse of the process of court and is liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, regardless of the gravity of the alleged offence or the availability in law to prosecute crimes after long periods. The court must protect innocent persons from harassment by unscrupulous litigants who seek to weaponize criminal proceedings as a tool for vengeance after civil defeat.
On this section: Prescribes three-year limitation period for offences under Sections 403 and 406 IPC. Court applied this to bar the complaint filed 15 years after the alleged incident. The limitation period commences from the date of the offence for instantaneous offences.
-
Ghanshyam Soni vs State (govt. of Nct of Delhi)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
For the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, the relevant date is the date of filing the complaint or initiating criminal proceedings, not the date of taking cognizance by the Magistrate.
On this section: Bar on taking cognizance after limitation period and inherent powers of the High Court.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence under both the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code, the provisions of the FSSA have overriding effect over the IPC provisions by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution should proceed only under the FSSA, specifically Section 59, and not under the IPC provisions. The FSSA being comprehensive legislation with exhaustive substantive and procedural provisions for dealing with food safety offences, including more stringent punishments and specialized procedures, is the appropriate and exclusive remedy for food adulteration and unsafe food violations.
On this section: Prescribes one-year limitation for taking cognizance of IPC offences; extendable under Section 473
-
Sunita Bhagat vs Sebi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 12(1B) of the SEBI Act creates two classes of persons: (i) those who commenced collective investment activities prior to 25.1.1995 ('proviso category') who may continue until obtaining registration under the regulations; and (ii) those who did not ('non-proviso category') who are absolutely barred from commencing such activities until obtaining registration. The bar for the non-proviso category is self-executing and operative from 25.1.1995 regardless of when regulations are framed. However, criminal prosecution for regulatory non-compliance (such as failure to apply for registration under Regulation 5) requires that the accused was a director/officer of the company at the time the specific breach occurred. A director who resigned before the deadline for compliance cannot be prosecuted for breaches arising on or after the resignation date. The complaint must clearly disclose whether the accused is charged as a non-proviso category violator (commencing activity without authority) or merely as an existing operator who failed to comply with procedural regulations. Absence of such clarity, combined with the accused having exited before the breach date, renders prosecution unsustainable.
On this section: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of limitation period. Court held one year limitation applies to SEBI Act offences under section 24 (as amended) and limitation runs from date of director's resignation, not from date company committed breach.
-
K. L. Singh vs State of up
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings for offences alleged to have occurred in 1996, with the claim for damages being rejected in 2001 and communicated thereafter, cannot be initiated in 2011 (more than 9 years after rejection). The alleged offence of misappropriation/criminal breach of trust constitutes an instantaneous offence, not a continuing offence. The injury caused was complete on the date of rejection of the claim. Successive complaints on identical facts filed by frustrated litigants who have failed in civil and arbitration proceedings, after full consideration and dismissal of earlier complaints on merit, constitute abuse of process and are not maintainable under law. The courts must protect innocent persons from being harassed by unscrupulous persons through frivolous criminal complaints.
On this section: Limitation period for taking cognizance of offences. Court held that for offences under Sections 403 and 406 IPC, the limitation is 3 years, and cognizance must be taken within this period from the date of offence.
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food, the provisions of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, specifically Section 59, will have overriding effect over Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution for such offences must proceed under the FSSA framework rather than under the IPC, and simultaneous prosecution under both statutes is not permissible. The FSSA provides a comprehensive and exhaustive legislative framework for food safety with more stringent penalties and procedural safeguards than the IPC, and was enacted specifically to consolidate and replace the multiplicity of food-related laws that existed prior to its enactment.
On this section: Limitation period for taking cognizance of IPC offences (one year); compared with FSSA Section 77 limitation
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act of food adulteration or dealing with unsafe food constitutes an offence under both Sections 272 and 273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of the FSSA. Therefore, prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA regime, and there cannot be simultaneous prosecution under both the IPC and FSSA. The FSSA being comprehensive, exhaustive legislation consolidating all food-related laws with more stringent punishments and procedural safeguards, the IPC provisions are excluded from application in food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Establishes one-year limitation for IPC offences
-
Ram Nath vs The State of Uttar Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an act or omission constitutes an offence of food adulteration under both Sections 272-273 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 59 of the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006, the provisions of the FSSA shall have overriding effect by virtue of Section 89 of FSSA. Consequently, there shall be no simultaneous prosecution under both statutes; the prosecution must proceed exclusively under the FSSA framework which provides more comprehensive and stringent provisions for dealing with unsafe food offences. The IPC provisions for food adulteration are superseded by the FSSA for all food safety matters covered by the FSSA.
On this section: Limitation for taking cognizance of IPC offences - one year, compared with FSSA Section 77
-
Suman vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A person who is named in a first information report or complaint with allegation of committing a particular crime or offence, but against whom the police does not file a charge-sheet or drops the case, can be proceeded against under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure if from the evidence collected or produced in the course of any inquiry into or trial of an offence, the court is prima facie satisfied that such person has committed any offence for which such person can be tried with other accused. The non-filing of charge-sheet by police against such person is not a bar to invoking the jurisdiction of the court under Section 319 CrPC.
On this section: Limitation on cognizance of certain offences; discussed in relation to whether limitation bar applies to Section 319 cognizance; court noted this was initially raised but later held not to bar Section 319 proceedings
-
Sudarshanacharya vs Purushottamacharya
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal proceedings, while the right to speedy trial is a fundamental component of Article 21 of the Constitution, courts cannot prescribe automatic or mechanical time limits at the end of which criminal trials must be terminated and the accused acquitted or discharged. Courts must exercise discretion based on the totality of circumstances including the conduct of parties, nature of the offence, and whether allowing proceedings to continue would constitute an abuse of process. The inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code may be invoked to quash proceedings only when the court is satisfied on material on record that continued proceedings would be an abuse of process or when ends of justice require it. In cases involving criminal breach of trust relating to institutional property, where the accused has engaged in delay tactics through repeated discharge applications and the complainant has demonstrated continued interest in prosecution, the continuation of proceedings does not constitute an abuse of process.
On this section: Prescribes limitation period for prosecution of offences. Appellant argued the case is barred under this section, but court left the issue open for trial court to decide.
-
Anand Singh vs Prem Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The bar of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC is mandatory and applies to defamation offences. A court cannot take cognizance of a defamation offence after the expiry of three years from the date of the offence. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of this limitation bar, and the revisional court erred in ignoring this bar and passing a summoning order. Additionally, a revisional court must issue notice to the petitioner before passing an adverse order, as required by the principles of natural justice.
On this section: Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation; the court held that this provision is mandatory and bars cognizance of defamation offences after three years
-
Somesh Shokeen vs State Govt. of Nct of Delhi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The period of limitation prescribed under Section 468 CrPC for taking cognizance of certain offences applies to the date of filing the complaint or institution of prosecution/criminal proceedings, and not to the date when the court or Magistrate takes cognizance. A complaint filed within the period of limitation cannot be rendered infructuous or defeated by delay in court proceedings beyond the control of the complainant, as this would violate the principle 'actus curiae neminem gravabit' (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The limitation period commences from the date of the offence or the date when the offence is detected, as specified in Section 469 CrPC, and the court's act of taking cognizance is not subject to a separate limitation period.
On this section: Defines the period of limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. Court held that the limitation period commences from the date of filing the complaint or charge-sheet, not from the date of cognizance.
-
Ashok Kumar Mittal vs Sat Kamal Pathak
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a complaint for perjury and false prosecution is filed after a malicious FIR has been quashed by the High Court, the limitation period for such complaint should be computed from the date of quashing of the FIR, not from the date of its registration. The cause of action arises when the false allegations are judicially determined to be baseless. Additionally, when multiple offences are charged together, the limitation period is determined with reference to the offence punishable with the most severe punishment, and the trial court must consider the substantive merits of the complaint before dismissing it on limitation grounds alone.
On this section: Period of limitation is three years if offence is punishable with imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
-
Mohd.rafiq vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner himself files an application under sections 173 and 242 CrPC seeking reinvestigation and specifically prays that cognizance should not be taken till the decision of such application, any delay in taking cognizance caused by the pendency of such application cannot be attributed to the prosecution or the court's inaction. Therefore, such delay does not constitute a violation of the limitation period prescribed under section 468 CrPC, and cognizance taken after the rejection of such application is not illegal merely on the ground that it was taken after the expiry of the limitation period calculated from the date of the charge-sheet filing.
On this section: Limitation for taking cognizance of offences; the court examined whether cognizance taken after expiry of this period is illegal
-
C.p. Yogeshwara vs State of Karnataka
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Criminal proceedings for electoral offences cannot be quashed on the ground of limitation alone, as the court possesses statutory power under Section 473 CrPC to extend the limitation period in the interest of justice. However, the trial court must consider the question of limitation before proceeding further against the accused, taking into account the exclusion of the absconding period under Section 470 CrPC and the discretionary power to extend limitation under Section 473 CrPC, after hearing both parties.
On this section: Limitation for prosecution; the court considered whether the prosecution was barred by limitation period.
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 468
What have the courts held on Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (26 Nov 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.468 bar is computed from filing of the complaint / institution of prosecution, not the later date of cognizance. Another 15 judgments on this section are set out below, 11 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2025.
How do I find court cases under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: CRPC 468, section 468 CRPC, section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 16 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases (26 Nov 2013).
What should I read with Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and has it changed?
1 other provision in this corpus refers back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNSS 514 (Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of period of limitation), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure come into force?
Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, cited as CRPC 468, came into force on 01 Apr 1974, having been enacted on 25 Jan 1974. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 320. Compounding of offences1554 words
- 167. Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty four hours1005 words
- 220. Trial for more than one offence962 words
- 360. Order to release on probation of good conduct or after admonition804 words
- 2. Definitions799 words
- 198. Prosecution for offences against marriage774 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 330a1099-77ad-4a2e-b22a-769b33398f9e). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.