Can a Theft Case Proceed After Five Years? Allahabad High Court Says No

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against two accused in a motorcycle theft case, holding that the trial court had taken cognizance nearly five years after the alleged incident, in clear violation of the statutory limitation prescribed under criminal law.

The bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri set aside the proceedings against Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur in a case of 2024 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, arising out of a 2019 crime registered at Firozabad North police station under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

The case relates to the theft of a motorcycle reported to have taken place on April 13, 2019. An FIR was lodged three days later against unknown persons. During investigation, seven accused were identified. A charge sheet dated June 14, 2019, was filed against five of them, and cognizance was taken well within the prescribed limitation period.

However, investigation against Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur continued separately. Their names surfaced at a later stage during investigation, including through a confessional statement of a co-accused recorded in the supplementary case diary. A supplementary charge sheet was prepared against them on June 26, 2021.

The high court noted that despite being prepared in 2021, the supplementary charge sheet was not placed before the court for over three years and remained pending in the office of the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad. It was ultimately filed only on November 25, 2024, following which the Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance on November 27, 2024.

Court observed that offences under Sections 379 and 411 IPC are punishable with imprisonment up to three years and, therefore, attract a limitation period of three years under Sections 468 and 469 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Once this period expires, a magistrate is barred from taking cognizance unless the delay is condoned in accordance with law.

During the proceedings, the Circle Officer, City, Firozabad, appeared before the court and admitted that the delay occurred because the supplementary charge sheet was not forwarded to the court within the limitation period. He also informed the court that departmental proceedings had been initiated against the head constable concerned for the lapse, while the then Circle Officer was no longer in service.

Court had also sought an explanation from the then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, who had taken cognizance in 2024. In her explanation, she stated that cognizance was taken due to a bona fide oversight and referred to a “usual practice” in magisterial courts of forming a prima facie view without an in-depth examination of limitation.

Rejecting this justification, the high court held that prevailing practice cannot override mandatory statutory provisions. Court remarked that cognizance is the foundation of a criminal case and must be taken strictly in accordance with law.

"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," court said. 

It, therefore, directed the then Chief Judicial Magistrate to be more cautious in future and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law.

Moreover, court cautioned judicial officers against substituting statutory mandates with informal practices.

Court asked the Registrar General of the high court to communicate the present order to the Judicial Training and Research Institute (J.T.R.I.), Lucknow to impart proper training to the Judicial Officers.

Further, relying on Supreme Court judgments, including State of Punjab v. Sarwan Singh and P.K. Chaudhary v. Commander, 48 BRTF, court reiterated that where the bar of limitation applies, courts have no discretion to ignore it.

Accordingly, court quashed the entire proceedings, including the supplementary charge sheet dated June 26, 2021, and the cognizance order dated November 27, 2024, insofar as they related to Avneesh Kumar and Suraj Thakur, while directing that proceedings against the remaining five accused, against whom cognizance had been taken within limitation, shall continue.

Case Title: Avneesh Kumar vs State of UP and Another

Order Date: January 19, 2026

Bench: Justice Praveen Kumar Giri