Limitation in criminal complaint quashing turns on disputed facts and must be decided on evidence, not at threshold.

A criminal complaint under sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 could not be quashed under section 482 CrPC on a limitation objection where the starting point of limitation depended on when the Registrar of Companies acquired knowledge of the alleged false statement. The Court treated limitation as a mixed question of law and fact and held that it could not resolve disputed factual issues at the quashing stage without evidence. The petitioner was left to raise the limitation plea before the trial court during trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether a criminal complaint under sections 63 and 628 of the Companies Act, 1956 could be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the ground of limitation.

Analysis: The question of limitation depended on when the Registrar of Companies acquired knowledge of the alleged false statement and could not be determined merely from the date of issue of the prospectus. Limitation in such complaints was held to be a mixed question of law and fact, requiring evidence at trial. In proceedings under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court could not undertake a factual inquiry into disputed matters or decide whether the complaint was filed within time when those facts had not yet been examined by the trial court.

Conclusion: The complaint could not be quashed on the limitation plea at the threshold, and the petitioner was left to raise that issue before the trial court during trial.

Ratio Decidendi: A complaint cannot be quashed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on a limitation objection where the starting point of limitation depends on disputed facts and the issue is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided on evidence.

---