The Allahabad High Court has held that taking cognizance beyond the prescribed period of limitation in a theft case from Firozabad amounts to a clear violation of law as well as an abuse of the judicial process. Setting aside the entire criminal proceedings against two accused, the Court also issued directions to the concerned Magistrate as well as other Magistrates that,
“…………..directed to be more cautious in future and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law and existing law may not be substituted by practice (if any) is illegally prevalent in all the Magisterial Courts in the State of U.P.”
The Court made strong observations on the magisterial system and the so-called prevailing “practice”, by noting that,
“The then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, Minakshi Sinha, who is currently posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur has not submitted explanation as person having knowledge of law but as a layman………..”
These observations were made by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri while allowing a petition filed by Avnish Kumar.
In the order, the Court held that an order taking cognizance forms the very foundation of a criminal trial, and if such an order itself is contrary to law, the entire proceedings become unsustainable.
According to the facts of the case, an FIR was registered at Police Station, Firozabad North, District Firozabad, in 2019 in relation to motorcycle theft, invoking Sections 379 and 411 of the IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet against five accused was filed within time and cognizance was duly taken.
However, a supplementary charge-sheet prepared against two other accused, Avnish Kumar and Suraj Thakur, in 2021 and remained pending at the police station/office for nearly three years and was eventually placed before the court in November 2024, whereupon cognizance was taken by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate.
The High Court observed that for offences punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, taking cognizance after the expiry of three years is statutorily barred. In such circumstances, cognizance taken on a belatedly filed charge-sheet reflects a complete disregard of law and constitutes an abuse of the process of court.
The Court further noted that such action unnecessarily subjects the accused to criminal prosecution.
It was emphasised that taking cognizance beyond the period of limitation not only violates the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C.), but is also contrary to the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees life and personal liberty in accordance with “procedure established by law”.
The Court also expressed dissatisfaction with the explanation tendered by the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, observing that,
“For such explanation and passing of impugned order, it may be assumed that she is taking her judicial service very lightly and is not treating it as a serious obligation to impart justice. The behaviour as well as the conduct of the Presiding Officer as reflected from her explanation as well as cognizance order deserves initiation of departmental proceedings, as the same prima facie demonstrates conduct unbecoming of the office held by her, but taking a very lenient view, this Court is silent on this aspect.”
Ultimately, the High Court quashed the entire criminal proceedings, the charge-sheet and the cognizance order insofar as they related to the two petitioners, while permitting the proceedings against the remaining five accused, against whom cognizance had been taken within the prescribed limitation to continue.
The Court further directed police and judicial officers to strictly adhere to statutory timelines laid down in law, and also directed the Registrar General to forward a copy of the judgment to the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow.
Case: Avneesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another
Date of Order: 19.01.2026
See Order: Avneesh Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another
