Allahabad High Court Rebukes Former Firozabad CJM for Delayed Cognizance in Theft Case
The Allahabad High Court has issued a stern rebuke to former Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) of Firozabad, Minakshi Sinha, for taking cognizance of a chargesheet in a motorcycle theft case more than three years after the incident. The court strongly criticized her actions, stating she was "taking judicial service very lightly and not treating it as a serious obligation to impart justice."
Court Quashes Proceedings Against Two Accused
In a significant ruling, the Bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri quashed the chargesheet filed against two individuals, Suraj Thakur and Avaneesh Kumar, in 2024—five years after the alleged motorcycle theft occurred in April 2019. The court emphasized that cognizance forms the foundation of any criminal case and must be executed strictly in accordance with legal provisions.
Timeline of Judicial Delays and Legal Violations
The case highlights multiple layers of procedural lapses:
- The theft occurred on April 13, 2019, with an FIR registered promptly.
- A chargesheet against five other accused was filed expeditiously on June 14, 2019.
- However, the police took two years to prepare the chargesheet against Thakur and Kumar, completing it only on June 26, 2021.
- The chargesheet then remained at the circle officer’s office for an additional three years before being submitted to the CJM court on November 25, 2024.
- CJM Minakshi Sinha took cognizance on November 27, 2024, violating the limitation periods under CrPC Sections 468 and 469.
Court's Observations on Legal and Constitutional Violations
Justice Giri noted that the offenses under Sections 379 and 411 of the Indian Penal Code are punishable by up to three years of imprisonment, making the three-year limitation period applicable. By taking cognizance after this period had lapsed, the CJM’s actions were deemed "against the provisions of law and an abuse of the process of the Court." The court further stated that this violated the fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution, which mandates due process of law.
CJM's Explanation and Judicial Accountability
In her defense, CJM Sinha, now posted as Chief Judicial Magistrate in Saharanpur, cited a "usual practice prevalent in all magisterial courts in Uttar Pradesh" where no in-depth examination of records occurs during cognizance. The High Court firmly rejected this justification, asserting that "such practice cannot substitute a law which is not mentioned in the Code of Criminal Procedure."
The court observed that her explanation and the impugned order suggested a lack of seriousness toward judicial duties. While the conduct "deserves initiation of departmental proceedings," the Bench adopted a lenient approach and refrained from ordering such action. Instead, it directed CJM Sinha to exercise greater caution in the future and adhere strictly to legal mandates.
Directives for Judicial Training and Systemic Reforms
In a move aimed at preventing recurrence, Justice Giri ordered that this judgment be incorporated into the training curriculum for new judicial officials at the Judicial Training and Research Institute. The court emphasized that cognizance orders must be passed in strict compliance with the law to uphold judicial integrity.
Additionally, the High Court issued directives to the Firozabad Superintendent of Police, District Magistrate, and Chief Judicial Magistrate to review this order in monthly meetings. It instructed them to ensure all police officers complete investigations within the timelines prescribed under the CrPC and submit reports within the statutory limitation periods.
Broader Implications for Judicial Conduct
This ruling underscores the critical importance of timeliness and adherence to legal procedures in the criminal justice system. By quashing the delayed proceedings and mandating training reforms, the Allahabad High Court has reinforced accountability within the judiciary. The decision serves as a reminder to judicial officers across Uttar Pradesh and beyond that established practices cannot override codified law, and due diligence is non-negotiable in dispensing justice.
