CRL.P/8277/2026 of SRI. MADAPPA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 14 July 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before the Court seeking the following prayer. "WHEREFORE the petitioner most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in C.C. 319/2026 in connection to Crime No.255/2025 for the offence punishable U/S 16, 17 & 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act and section 374 if IPC registered by Gundlupet police, pending on the file of Senior Civil judge and JMFC Gundlupet in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard Sri. Sampath Kumar A.V., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - I along with Sri. K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioners are drawn as accused Nos.1 to 8. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.02555 of 2025 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976 ("Act" for short) and Section 374 of the IPC.

HC-KAR

4. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: About 11 years prior to the registration of the crime, a survey is conducted in the fields of Gundlupet Taluk, alleging that the labourers in the fields or farms therein are being used as bonded labour. A survey is conducted in the years 2015-16 and all the persons, who were allegedly being used as bonded labour were all rescued. The matter laid at rest at that stage. The crime in Crime No.0255 of 2025 comes to be registered on 01.10.2025, for the incidents which occurred between 01.01.2015 to 31.12.2016, for the aforesaid offences. The jurisdictional police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. On 27-04-2026, the concerned Court takes cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioner. A case then comes to be registered before the concerned Court. Challenging the proceedings before the concerned Court, the petitioner is before this Court in the subject petition.

5. If the complaint had been registered somewhere in the year 2015 itself, it would have been an altogether different circumstance. Instead, the crime is registered 10 years later on

HC-KAR

01.10.2025, pursuant to a complaint made on 01.10.2025, for an incident which occurred on 01.01.2015.

6. Now the offences against the petitioner are noticed required to be noticed. Sections 16, 17 and 18 of the Act are punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, while Section 374 of the IPC is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year. In these circumstances it becomes apposite to refer to Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. It reads as follows:

"Section 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.—(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; (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 a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years."

(Emphasis supplied)

HC-KAR

Section 468 of the Cr.P.C. bars a Court from taking cognizance of an offence after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2). Under Section 468(2)(a), the period of limitation is six months where the offence is punishable with fine only; under Section 468(2)(b), it is one year where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; and under Section 468(2)(c), it is three years where the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years. Cognizance having been taken by the concerned Court only on 27-04-2026, i.e., nearly ten years after the date of the incident, the statutory periods of limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(b) and (c) of the Cr.P.C. would apply to the said offences.

7. Therefore, in the light of the punishment not travelling beyond the said statutory period, the petition deserves to be allowed on the sole ground of delay on part of the State officials, who have not taken any action despite the survey having been conducted during 2015–16.

HC-KAR

8. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.319/2026 pending on the file of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Gundlupet stands quashed.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43