Cognizance After Limitation Impermissible; 'Bona Fide Oversight' & 'Usual Practice' No Excuse For Magistrate: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court on Monday quashed criminal proceedings in a theft case where cognizance was taken by the Magistrate beyond the mandatory period prescribed under Section 468 CrPC [Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation].The Court took strong exception to the explanation offered by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who submitted that, as per the usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts, no in-depth enquiry is made on police reports before taking cognizance.The case pertained to a motorcycle theft incident and the FIR was lodged in July 2019 under Section 379 IPC. The first charge sheet was filed against five co-accused and cognizance taken promptly in 2019. However, the investigation against the applicant (Avneesh Kumar) and another accused (Suraj Thakur) remained pending before the Court. The second charge sheet against these two accused was prepared on June 26, 2021, but it remained at the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad, for over 3 years. Eventually, it was submitted to the court in November 2024. Ignoring the 3-year limitation bar, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned took cognisance of the same more than 5 years after the incident and 3 years after the charge sheet date. Challenging this, the applicant-accused moved the HC. The Government Advocate submitted that after the expiry of the period as prescribed under law (3 years in this case), cognizance could not have been taken by the Judicial Magistrate concerned.Agaisnt this backdrop, the High Court called for an explanation from the CJM Concerned as to why cognizance was taken beyond the limitation period as provided under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC.In her explanation, the CJM concerned admitted that the point of limitation did not come to her mind due to "bona fide oversight." She further elaborated:"It is humbly submitted to the Hon'ble Court that as per the usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and perhaps in other states too, no in depth enquiry or examination of the record is made on receiving the police report i.e. the charge-sheet (or the final report) for purposes of taking cognizance of the offences and only a prima facie view is formed by the Magistracy on the basis of material contained in the case diary." (emphasis supplied)Rejecting this justification, Justice Giri observed that such a practice "cannot substitute a law which is not mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure". The Court added that for such an explanation and the passing of the impugned order, it may be assumed that the officer is "taking her judicial service very lightly and is not treating it as a serious obligation to impart justice".The Bench further remarked that the behaviour and conduct of the Presiding Officer, as reflected from her explanation and the cognizance order, prima facie demonstrated a conduct unbecoming of the office held by her. However, taking a very lenient view, the Court did not initiate any departmental proceedings against her and only directed her to be more cautious in future and to pass orders strictly in accordance with the law. The Court also found the police authorities negligent in this case.Thus, disposing of the application filed under Section 528 BNSS, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings of the case, including the cognizance order in respect of the applicant Avneesh Kumar and co-accused Suraj Thakur. It clarified that the proceedings against the other five accused, against whom cognizance was taken within the limitation period, shall continue. Importantly, the Court also directed the Registrar General to communicate the order to the Judicial Training and Research Institute (J.T.R.I.), Lucknow, to impart training to Judicial Officers that "cognizance is the base of a criminal case so cognizance order must be passed in accordance with law." Case title - Avneesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 34Click Here To Read/Download Order

Cognizance After Limitation Impermissible; 'Bona Fide Oversight' & 'Usual Practice' No Excuse For Magistrate: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags