Cognizance taken by a Magistrate after the expiration of the limitation period is unlawful, violating due process rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

1. The affidavit filed by the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad is taken on record.

2. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that he has filed the instant application under Section 528 BNSS with the relief which has been mentioned in the prayer clause of the application.

3. The relief which has been mentioned in the application is delineated below:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application under section 528 B.N.S.S. and quash the entire proceeding of case No.94500 of 2024 (State Vs. Sooraj Thakur and others), arising out of case crime No.246 of 2019, under Sections 379, 411 IPC, Police Station- Firozabad North, District Firozabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Firozabad as well as charge sheet dated 26.06.2021 alongwith cognizance order dated27.11.2024 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate Firozabad."

4. This Court, vide order dated 07.01.2026, directed the concerned, the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, to submit her explanation as to why cognizance was taken beyond the limitation period as provided under Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. The order dated 07.01.2026 is being reproduced hereinbelow:

“1. The personal affidavit filed today by the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad is taken on record.

2. Today, Shri Praveen Kumar Tiwari, Circle Officer, Firozabad, is present before the Court. He has acquainted the Court with the facts of the case that the incident occurred on 13.04.2019 and in respect of which an F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 246 of 2019 under Section 379 I.P.C. in Police Station Firozabad North, District Firozabad, against unknown persons while during investigation, the names of seven persons came to light, namely (i) Aman Sakya, (ii) Tanuj Gautam, (iii) Adarsh Yadav, (iv) Vishal @ Raja, (v) Rahul @ Bhagauna, (vi) Suraj Thakur and (vii)Avneesh Kumar.

2. After investigation, the first charge-sheet was prepared on 14.06.2019 under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. against the accused (i) Aman Sakya, (ii) Tanuj Gautam, (iii) Adarsh Yadav, (iv) Vishal @ Raja, (v) Rahul @ Bhagauna and the charge-sheet along with the case diary was submitted in the court of the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The learned Judicial Magistrate took cognizance against the offences in respect of aforesaid five accused persons on 17.06.2019.

3. The investigation, however, remained pending against two accused persons, namely Suraj Thakur and Avneesh Kumar. In respect of these two accused persons, second charge-sheet under Sections 379 and 411 I.P.C. was prepared on 26.06.2021 after about two years. The second charge- sheet was kept in the office of the Circle Officer, City, District Firozabad, up to 24.11.2024 and thereafter, it was submitted in the court of the Judicial Magistrate on 25.11.2024, after the expiry of the limitation period as provided under Sections 468 as well as 469 Cr.P.C. (corresponding Section 514 and 515 BNSS). The provisions of Section 468 and 469 Cr.P.C. are delineated below:

"Section 468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.-

(1) Except as otherwise provided elsewhere in this Code, no Court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2), after the expiry of the period of limitation.

(2) The period of limitation shall be-

(a) six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only;

(b) one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year;

(c) three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exce