Limitation must be decided before cognizance in defamation complaints; delayed filings without condonation can invalidate proceedings.

In a complaint for defamation, limitation had to be examined before cognizance was taken, because the alleged defamatory publication was treated as occurring when the FIR was lodged and the complaint was filed much later. The Magistrate did not consider limitation at the pre-cognizance stage, and there was no formal request for condonation or material showing that the delay was explained or that extension under the interests of justice was warranted. On that basis, cognizance was without jurisdiction, and the subsequent summoning and framing of charge were quashed as time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the summoning and framing of charge for an offence under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code were liable to be quashed because the Magistrate failed to consider limitation at the pre-cognizance stage and because the complaint was filed beyond the period of limitation without a basis for extension under Section 473 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Analysis: The defamatory act was treated as having been committed when the First Information Report containing the allegedly defamatory statements was lodged, and the complaint was filed long thereafter. The Magistrate was required to examine limitation before taking cognizance, but no such consideration was given. In the absence of any formal request for condonation or any material showing that the delay was explained or that the matter deserved to proceed in the interest of justice, the proceedings could not be sustained. Once cognizance had been taken without addressing limitation, the subsequent summoning and charge were without jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The proceedings from the stage of cognizance onwards were rightly quashed and the complaint was liable to be dismissed as time-barred.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint governed by limitation, the Magistrate must decide the bar of limitation before taking cognizance, and where delay is neither explained nor shown to merit extension in the interest of justice, the complaint and all consequential proceedings are without jurisdiction.

---