Magistrate's Failure to Adhere to Limitation Period Violates Article 21, Orders Quashed
In a landmark judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the proceedings against Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur, accused in a theft case, due to the Magistrate taking cognizance beyond the legally prescribed limitation period. The decision, delivered by Justice Praveen Kumar Giri, underscores the necessity for judicial officers to adhere strictly to procedural timelines as mandated by the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).
The case in question, registered as Case No. 94500 of 2024, originated from an incident on April 13, 2019, when a motorcycle theft was reported in Firozabad. Despite the filing of a First Information Report (FIR) shortly after the incident, the charge sheet against Kumar and Thakur was delayed until June 26, 2021. Further exacerbating the delay, the charge sheet was not submitted to the court until November 24, 2024, well past the three-year limitation period outlined in Sections 468 and 469 of the CrPC.
Justice Giri highlighted that the cognizance taken by the Magistrate on November 27, 2024, was in direct violation of the procedural law, amounting to an abuse of the court's process and a violation of the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes adherence to due process.
The court’s order emphasized the critical importance of following the limitation periods stipulated under Sections 468 and 469 CrPC, which prevent courts from taking cognizance of offences after the expiry of specific timeframes. These provisions aim to ensure swift justice and prevent undue harassment of individuals through prolonged litigation.
In light of the findings, the court quashed all proceedings against Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur. However, the proceedings against other accused, who were charged within the limitation period, will continue. The judgment also called for stricter adherence to legal provisions by judicial officers and directed training for judicial officers to ensure compliance with procedural laws.
The ruling also pointed to systemic issues within the judicial process, noting that the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s explanation reflected a lack of thorough inquiry into the record before taking cognizance. The High Court directed all judicial magistrates to avoid substituting established legal procedures with prevalent but illegal practices.
Additionally, the court ordered the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court to ensure that the Judicial Training and Research Institute in Lucknow incorporates training modules that emphasize the importance of following legal procedures while taking cognizance.
This judgment serves as a significant reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding the rule of law and the rights enshrined in the Constitution, ensuring that justice is not only done but seen to be done in a timely manner.
Bottom Line:
Cognizance taken by Magistrate beyond the prescribed limitation period under Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. is illegal and violates the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 468, 469 CrPC, Article 21 of the Constitution of India, Sections 379, 411 IPC.
Avneesh Kumar v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2842226
