Taking serious note of a chief judicial magistrate taking cognizance of a chargesheet in a theft case more than three years after the incident, the Allahabad High Court pulled up the then chief judicial magistrate of Firozabad, Minakshi Sinha, for “taking judicial service very lightly and not treating it as a serious obligation to impart justice”.
The Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri said that though it deserved “initiation of departmental proceedings against the CJM as it prima facie demonstrated conduct unbecoming of the office held by her”, it was taking a very lenient view and not ordering the same.
Quashing the chargesheet filed against two persons in 2024, five years after the motorcycle theft, Justice Giri said that his judgment should be made a part of the training for new judicial officials at the Judicial Training and Research Institute, “as cognizance is the base of a criminal case, so cognizance order must be passed in accordance with law”.
Suraj Thakur and Avaneesh Kumar had filed a petition in the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings and chargesheet against them in a motorcycle theft case in the CJM court of Firozabad district. The duo’s counsel told the High Court that the theft took place on April 13, 2019, and an FIR was registered. A chargesheet against five others was filed in the CJM court expeditiously on June 14 same year, but the police took two years to prepare the chargesheet against the two – on June 26, 2021. Adding to the delay, the chargesheet kept lying at the circle officer’s office for another three years and was submitted in the CJM court on November 25, 2024.
The duo’s counsel challenged the decision of the Firozabad CJM court taking cognizance of the chargesheet after the expiry of the limitation period as provided under CrPC sections 468 and 469 – six months, if the offence is punishable with fine only; one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year; and three years, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding one year but not exceeding three years.
In its order, Justice Giri observed, “The learned Judicial Magistrate, ignoring the provisions of Sections 468 and 469 Cr.P.C., took cognizance on 27.11.2024, under Sections 379 and 411 IPC which is punishable upto three years and fine, after lapse of more than three years, which was against the provisions of law and was an abuse of the process of the Court, thus violating the fundamental rights enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, as due process of law is required to be followed.”
The court further stated… “then Chief Judicial Magistrate, Firozabad, Minakshi Sinha, who is currently posted as the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur, has not submitted explanation as person having knowledge of law but as a layman… as per her explanation “as per the usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts in the State of Uttar Pradesh, and perhaps in other states too, no in depth enquiry or examination of the record is made on receiving the police report i.e. the chargesheet (or the final report) for purposes of taking cognizance of the offences and only a prima facie view is formed by the Magistracy on the basis of material contained in the case diary”.
Story continues below this ad
On the CJM’s explanation, the High Court observed, “Such practice cannot substitute a law which is not mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure.”
“For such explanation and passing of the 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 observed further.
“Chief Judicial Magistrate Minakshi Sinha is directed to be more cautious in future and to pass orders strictly in accordance with law, and existing law may not be substituted by practice (if any) that is illegally prevalent in all the magisterial courts in UP,” the High Court said, adding that other judicial magistrates as well as courts should not follow such practice.
The High Court also directed Firozabad Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate to take note of the order in the monthly meeting and inform all the police officers to complete the investigation within the time frame prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure and submit the police report within the limitation period as prescribed under law.
