MADURAI: The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has directed Judicial Magistrate V, Madurai, to submit an explanation on 28th September as to why a 2020 NDPS case was taken on file only in 2026, despite the limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the CrPC.

“As per the facts disclosed, the date of occurrence is November 27, 2020, as per the FIR dated December 27, 2020 and the charge sheet. This is a clear abuse of power by the police, which was endorsed by the Judicial Magistrate, as per the records,” said Justice P Murugan.

The court also directed the investigating officer M Perarasi to appear in person on September 29 and explain why the charge sheet was not filed within the prescribed time.

The court issued this direction while hearing a petition seeking to quash the false FIR filed against the petitioner in connection with a narcotic drugs case in 2020.

The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the charge sheet and submitted that the accused has been charged under Section 8(c) and 20(b)(ii)(A) of the NDPS Act, 1985. The maximum punishment prescribed in the said provision is one year. “If that is so, the case ought to have been taken on file within a year from the date of registration of the FIR, i.e., before 27.12.2021. However, as of 2024, no FIR had been received by the Magistrate Court, as recorded by this court in this present petition,” observed the HC.

Though the government advocate submitted that, as per the instructions received from the police, the FIR and the charge sheet were filed on the same date, 27.12.2020. However, as per the endorsement made by the magistrate in the copy application, no FIR had been received by the Magistrate Court, the judge observed.

“In the latter part, the police might have sent the charge sheet and the magistrate thereafter taken the case only in the year 2026, in STC no 2008 of 2026. Therefore, at all levels, there is a non-application of mind, both on the part of the magistrate and the investigating officer. The magistrate is required to apply his mind before taking any cognisance as to whether the case is within the period of limitation,” said the Court.

The court issued the above directions and stayed the further proceedings until further orders.