Allahabad High Court raps Chief Judicial Magistrate for justifying wrong order by saying "usual practice in UP"

The Allahabad High Court recently reprimanded a judicial officer for taking cognizance of a chargesheet in a theft case beyond the limitation period and attempting to justify the order [Avneesh Kumar v State of UP and Another]

Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Minakshi Sinha had told the High Court that courts in Uttar Pradesh do not usually conduct an  in-depth enquiry or examination of the record on receiving the police report for purposes of taking cognizance of the offences.

However, Justice Praveen Kumar Giri observed that such practice cannot substitute the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and directed CJM Sinha to remain cautious in future and pass orders strictly in accordance with law. 

Existing law may not be substituted by a practice that may be illegally prevalent in Uttar Pradesh, the bench stressed.

Though the Court did not order any action against the CJM, it remarked that she seemed to be taking her duties very lightly.

“For such explanation and passing of impugned order, it may be assumed that she is taking her judicial service very lightly and is not treating it as a serious obligation to impart justice. The behaviour as well as the conduct of the Presiding Officer as reflected from her explanation as well as cognizance order deserves initiation of departmental proceedings, as the same prima facie demonstrates conduct unbecoming of the office held by her, but taking a very lenient view, this Court is silent on this aspect,” the bench said.

The Court further directed other judicial magistrates not to follow such practice, and asked the Judicial Training and Research Institute Lucknow to impart “such training to the Judicial Officers, as cognizance is the base of a criminal case so cognizance order must be passed in accordance with law.”

The Court passed the order while dealing with a plea seeking quashing of the theft case dating back to 2019.  Though a chargesheet against the petitioner Avneesh Kumar, an accused in the theft case, was prepared in 2021, it was submitted before the trial court only in 2024. 

Kumar’s counsel said that ignoring the provisions of limitation, the CJM took cognizance of the chargesheet.

In response, the State conceded that since the offence was punishable up to three years, the cognizance of the chargesheet could not have been taken after three years since it was beyond the limitation period as provided under Sections 468 and 469 of CrPC.

Consequently, the Court quashed entire proceedings against petitioner Avneesh Kumar and co-accused Suraj Thakur.

However, it clarified that proceedings against five other accused shall continue since the chargesheet against them had been filed within the period of limitation.

Advocates Pawan Singh Pundir and SM Ayaz Ali represented the petitioner.

Advocate Pankaj Kumar Tripathi represented the State.

[Read Judgment]