IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE B. P. SHARMA

th

ON THE 12 OF JANUARY, 2026 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 870 of 2025 SHEVENDRA SINGH PARIHAR Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Eshaan Datt - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Atmaram Ben - Dy. GA for respondent/State.

ORDER This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023/Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashment of the order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Balaghat, District Balaghat in Criminal Revision No.100/2024, whereby the revisional court affirmed the order dated 11.09.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balaghat rejecting the petitioner’s application under Section 468 CrPC / Section 514 BNSS, 2023.

2. An FIR was registered on 17.07.2012 at Police Station Lanji, District Balaghat vide Crime No.105/2012 for offences under Sections 465, 471, 181, 120-B, 467, 468 IPC and Section 30 of the Arms Act. The charge- sheet was ultimately filed on 19.09.2019, whereupon cognizance was taken by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class. Subsequently, the petitioner challenged the proceedings before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

seeking quashment of charge-sheet and vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed in M.Cr.C. Nos. 30451/2019 and 55531/2021, this Court quashed the proceedings under all IPC offences and permitted continuation of proceedings only under Section 30 of the Arms Act.

3. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 468 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 514 BNSS, 2023, before the learned trial court contending that the offence under Section 30 of the Arms Act is punishable with imprisonment up to six months or with fine which may extend to 2000 rupees or both, and therefore cognizance taken after expiry of the stipulated period of limitation was barred. The said application was rejected by the trial court on 11.09.2024, which order was affirmed in revision on 11.12.2024, giving rise to the present petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after quashing of all IPC offences, only Section 30 of the Arms Act survives, which is punishable with imprisonment up to six months. Cognizance having been taken years beyond limitation and there being no order condoning delay, continuation of proceedings is impermissible. To bolster his submission he relied on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of K. Hanumantha Rao vs K. Narsimha Rao and others (1981 SCC OnLine AP

84).

5. Learned counsel for the State opposes the petition contending that cognizance was taken when the charge-sheet included serious IPC offences, and therefore the bar of limitation was not attracted at that stage. It is submitted that subsequent quashing of IPC offences does not invalidate the cognizance already taken, and the courts below have rightly declined to drop the proceedings under Section 30 of the Arms Act.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties.

7. The FIR in the present case was lodged on 17.07.2012, whereas the charge sheet was filed on 19.09.2019 after 7 years and cognizance was taken on 19.09.2019. Once this Court, by order dated 09.05.2024, quashed all IPC offences, the matter stood confined solely to Section 30 of the Arms Act. From that point onwards, the court was required to examine limitation with reference to the surviving offence alone.

8. It is a settled position of law that the bar of limitation goes to the root of jurisdiction, and a court cannot proceed with trial of a time-barred offence in absence of a reasoned order condoning delay.

9. At this juncture, it is apposite to refer to the decision K.

Hanumantha Rao (supra). In the said case, cognizance had initially been taken for a graver offence under Section 324 IPC, which was not barred by limitation. However, upon appreciation of evidence, the Court found that only a minor offence under Section 323 IPC was made out. Si