In an application filed before the Allahabad High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, for quashing the proceedings pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad (CJM), as well as the charge sheet dated 26-06-2021, along with a cognizance order dated 27-11-2024, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri quashed the impugned proceedings, charge sheet, as well as the cognizance order along with issuance of directions.
By an order dated 07-01-2026, the Court directed the then CJM to submit her explanation as to why cognizance was taken beyond the limitation period mentioned under Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
The Circle Officer present in Court submitted that, even though the incident occurred on 13-04-2019, the First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 16-04-2019, and the charge sheet was filed against the two accused persons on 26-06-2021, it was kept by the then Circle Officer and the Head Constable. It was submitted that since the offence was punishable up to three years, if the charge sheet is not submitted in the Court within three years from the date of the alleged incident, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance, as the same is barred by Sections 468 and 469 of CrPC.
It was submitted that even though the charge sheet was submitted in the Court after a lapse of three years, the Judicial Magistrate took cognizance of the matter beyond the period of limitation.
The Court perused the explanation dated 12-12-2025 submitted by the then CJM, Firozabad, who is presently posted as the CJM, Saharanpur, and stated that she had not submitted an explanation as a person having knowledge of law, but as a layman. In her explanation, the CJM mentioned that this was the usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts in the State. Noting this, the Court stated that such practice cannot substitute a law that is not mentioned in the CrPC.
Further, the Court stated that the CJM was treating her judicial service very lightly and was not fulfilling her serious obligation to dispense justice. It was said that her behaviour and conduct were unbecoming of the office held by the CJM and deserved initiation of departmental proceedings, but the Court took a lenient view.
The Court directed the CJM to be more cautious in the future, as well as to pass orders strictly as per the law, and stated that the existing law is not to be substituted by any practice that is illegally prevalent in all magisterial courts in the State. Other Judicial Magistrates were also directed not to follow the practice mentioned by the CJM in her explanation. The Registrar General was directed to communicate the order to the Judicial Training and Research Institute, Lucknow, to train judicial officers, since cognizance is the base of a criminal case.
Taking note of various decisions of the Supreme Court, the Court opined that where a provision is mandatory, the court should not take cognizance of it contrary to the mandate of law. Thus, the entire proceedings pending in the court of CJM, as well as the charge sheet along with the cognizance order passed in respect of the applicant and the co-accused persons, were quashed.
Appearances:
For Applicant(s) – Mr. Pawan Singh Pundir, Mr. S.M. Ayaz Ali
For Respondent(s) – G.A.
