The Allahabad High Court quashed a motorcycle theft case after the trial court took cognizance five years after the incident, violating Sections 468–469 CrPC. The bench reprimanded the magistrate for ignoring the statutory limitation period.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against two accused in a motorcycle theft case, holding that the trial court had taken cognizance nearly five years after the date of the alleged offence, in clear violation of the statutory limitation prescribed under criminal law.
A single-judge bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri set aside the proceedings against Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur, observing that cognizance taken beyond the limitation period under Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) is illegal and amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Background of the Case
The case arose out of an alleged motorcycle theft that took place on April 13, 2019, for which an FIR was registered on April 16, 2019, at Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad, under Section 379 IPC. During the investigation, the police identified seven accused persons.
A charge sheet dated June 14, 2019, was filed against five accused, and cognizance was taken well within the limitation period. However, investigations against Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur continued separately, and their names surfaced later, including through a confessional statement of a co-accused recorded in the supplementary case diary.
A supplementary charge sheet against these two accused was prepared on June 26, 2021, but was not placed before the court for more than three years. It remained pending in the office of the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad, and was eventually submitted to the court only on November 25, 2024. Cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate on November 27, 2024.
High Court’s Findings
The High Court noted that offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC are punishable with imprisonment up to three years, thereby attracting a three-year limitation period under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC (corresponding to Sections 514 and 515 of BNSS).
Justice Giri categorically held that once the period of limitation expires, a magistrate is barred from taking cognizance, unless the delay is expressly condoned in accordance with law, which was not done in the present case.
“Where a provision is mandatory, the court should not take cognizance contrary to the mandate of law,”
the Court observed.
During the proceedings, the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad, appeared before the Court and admitted that the delay occurred due to failure in forwarding the supplementary charge sheet within the limitation period. He informed the Court that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the Head Constable responsible for the lapse, while the then Circle Officer was no longer in service.
The High Court had also sought an explanation from the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who had taken cognizance in 2024. In her explanation, she cited a “usual practice” of taking cognizance without an in-depth examination of limitations.
Rejecting this justification, the Court held that prevailing practice cannot override statutory mandates, and emphasised that cognizance is the very foundation of a criminal trial.
“The behaviour as well as the conduct of the Presiding Officer… deserves initiation of departmental proceedings… but taking a very lenient view, this Court is silent on this aspect,”
the Court remarked.
The Court directed the officer to be more cautious in the future and warned judicial officers against substituting law with informal practices.
The Court directed the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to communicate the order to the Judicial Training and Research Institute (J.T.R.I.), Lucknow, for imparting proper training to judicial officers on the importance of limitation while taking cognizance.
The Court relied on landmark Supreme Court judgments, including:
- State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh (1981) 3 SCC 34
- P.K. Chaudhary v. Commander, 48 BRTF (2008) 13 SCC 229
- Surinder Mohan Bikal v. Ascharaj Lal Chopra (1978) 2 SCC 403
Reiterating that courts have no discretion to ignore the bar of limitation, the High Court held that cognizance taken after expiry of the prescribed period is legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the High Court quashed the entire proceedings, including the supplementary charge sheet dated June 26, 2021, and the cognizance order dated November 27, 2024, insofar as they related to Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur.
However, the Court clarified that proceedings against the remaining five accused, against whom cognizance had been taken within the limitation period, shall continue.
Case Title:
Avneesh Kumar vs State of UP and Another
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. – 7072 of 2025
READ ORDER
