Allahabad High Court Quashes Theft Case for Time-Barred Cognizance, Orders Judicial Training on CrPC Compliance
By Rajesh Pandey
The Allahabad High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a theft case after holding that the judicial magistrate had taken cognisance well beyond the mandatory limitation period prescribed under Section 468 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
The court further directed the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, to ensure that judicial officers across the state are trained and sensitised to the legal position that cognisance forms the very foundation of a criminal case and must, therefore, be taken strictly in accordance with law.
The ruling was delivered by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, who quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against the applicant, Avneesh Kumar.
Court Questions Delay, Rejects ‘Routine Practice’ Defence
Earlier, the High Court had sought an explanation from the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) concerned on why cognisance had been taken beyond the statutory period of limitation provided under Sections 468 and 469 of the CrPC.
In a strongly worded order dated January 19, the court took serious exception to the explanation submitted by the then CJM of Firozabad.
The judicial officer had stated that, as per the usual practice prevalent in magisterial courts, no detailed or in-depth scrutiny of police reports is undertaken before taking cognisance.
The High Court rejected this reasoning outright, observing that routine practices cannot override statutory mandates and that failure to examine limitation at the stage of cognisance strikes at the root of criminal jurisprudence.
Background of the Theft Case
The matter arose from a motorcycle theft incident for which a First Information Report (FIR) was registered in July 2019 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed in 2019 against five co-accused, and cognisance was taken by the trial court within the prescribed time.
However, the investigation against two other accused—Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur—remained pending.
A second charge sheet about these two accused was prepared on June 26, 2021.
Charge Sheet Stuck for Over Three Years
Despite being ready, the second charge sheet remained pending with the Circle Officer (City), Firozabad, for more than three years.
It was eventually submitted before the court only in November 2024.
Ignoring the statutory bar of limitation, the Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned proceeded to take cognisance of the case, more than five years after the alleged theft incident and over three years after the preparation of the charge sheet.
Proceedings Quashed, Systemic Correction Ordered
The High Court held that such delayed cognisance was clearly barred under Section 468 of the CrPC and could not be sustained in law.
Consequently, the criminal proceedings against Avneesh Kumar were quashed.
Emphasising the systemic implications of the lapse, the court directed the JTRI, Lucknow, to impart appropriate training to judicial officers, underlining that cognisance is not a mechanical exercise but a crucial judicial function that must comply with statutory limitations and legal principles.
The ruling serves as a reminder that procedural safeguards under criminal law are not mere formalities but essential protections against arbitrary prosecution.
#AllahabadHighCourt #CrPC #Section468 #JudicialAccountability #CriminalJustice #LimitationPeriod #RuleOfLaw #JudicialTraining #IndianJudiciary