The Allahabad High Court criticised CJM for taking cognizance of a theft chargesheet after the limitation period and then defending it by saying such scrutiny is not usually done in Uttar Pradesh, calling her approach “taking her judicial service very lightly.”
The Allahabad High Court admonished a judicial officer for taking cognizance of a chargesheet in a theft case after the limitation period had expired, and for attempting to justify this decision.
Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Minakshi Sinha explained to the High Court that courts in Uttar Pradesh typically do not perform a detailed inquiry or review of records when receiving a police report to take cognizance of offenses.
Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, however, pointed out that this practice cannot replace the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and instructed CJM Sinha to exercise greater caution and ensure that her orders align strictly with the law in the future.
The bench emphasized that a prevailing practice in Uttar Pradesh should not override existing laws. While the Court did not impose any sanctions on the CJM, it noted that her demeanor suggested a lack of seriousness in her judicial responsibilities.
The bench said,
“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,”
The Court also cautioned other judicial magistrates against adopting similar practices and urged the Judicial Training and Research Institute in Lucknow to provide training for judicial officers, emphasizing that cognizance is fundamental to criminal cases and must be taken in accordance with the law.
This ruling occurred during a consideration of a plea aimed at quashing a theft case from 2019. Although a chargesheet against the petitioner, Avneesh Kumar, was prepared in 2021, it was only submitted to the trial court in 2024.
Kumar’s attorney argued that the CJM ignored the limitation provisions in taking cognizance of the chargesheet.
In response, the State acknowledged that, given that the offense carries a punishment of up to three years, cognizance could not be taken after three years, as specified in Sections 468 and 469 of the CrPC.
As a result, the Court quashed all proceedings against the petitioner Avneesh Kumar and co-accused Suraj Thakur.
ALSO READ: Delhi Judge Scolds Prosecutor Over Courtroom Outburst During Riot Trial
However, it clarified that legal proceedings against five other accused individuals could continue, as the chargesheet against them had been filed within the limitation period.
Advocates Pawan Singh Pundir and SM Ayaz Ali represented the petitioner, while Advocate Pankaj Kumar Tripathi represented the State.
Case Title: Avneesh Kumar v State of UP and Another
Read Attachment