Shakil Ahmad AtaversusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                  CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.19704 of 2025
         Arising Out of PS. Case No.-147 Year-2015 Thana- CHAPRA TOWN District- Saran
     ======================================================
     Shakil Ahmad Ata S/o- Md. Ataullah Resident of village- Post and Police
     Station- Nagra District- Saran

                                                                      ... ... Petitioner/s
                                           Versus
1.   The State of Bihar
2.   Amritesh S/o- Late Mahesh Prasad Srivastava R/o- Mauna Banganj Ps-
     Chapra Town Dist- Saran

                                            ... ... Opposite Party/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :       Mr. Gyan Prakash, Advocate
                                      Ms. Parul Priya, Advocate
     For the Opposite Party/s :       Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tiwary, APP
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
                                Date : 05-01-2026
                      Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

      counsel appearing for the State.

                      2. The present application has been filed for

      quashing of order dated 18.12.2024 in G.R. No. 2668 of 2015,

      Reg. No. 3850 of 2015, arising out of Chapra Nagar P.S. Case

      No. 147 of 2015 under Sections 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian

      Penal Code passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Saran

      by which the learned Court below has taken cognizance against

      the petitioner for offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the

      Indian Penal Code.

                      3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on

      26.05.2015, the petitioner allegedly abused and threatened the
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
                                            2/7




         informant over the telephone. It is further alleged that on

         27.05.2015 at about 9:15 p.m., near Salempur Chowk, the

         informant was surrounded and assaulted by three to four

         persons, who also extended threats, thereby causing fear. On the

         basis of these allegations, Chapra Nagar P.S. Case No. 147 of

         2015 under Sections 341, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code

         was registered. The police after investigation has submitted final

         form on 30.09.2022. Thereafter, the learned Court below has

         taken cognizance against the petitioner on 18.12.2024 for

         offences under Sections 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

                        4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

         the entire criminal proceeding stands vitiated on account of

         gross, unexplained, and inordinate delay in taking cognizance. It

         is contended that the alleged occurrences are of May 2015, and

         the offences alleged are punishable with imprisonment

         extending up to two years. In view of Section 468(2)(c) of the

         Code of Criminal Procedure, the limitation for taking

         cognizance of such offences is three years, which, under Section

         469(1)(a) Cr.P.C., commences from the date of the offence.

                        5. Additionally, learned counsel for the petitioner

         has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme

         Court in Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of Arunachal
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
                                            3/7




         Pradesh (1988) 4 SCC 36, wherein the Court held that the

         taking of cognizance after an inordinate and unexplained delay

         amounted to an abuse of the process of law.

                        6. It is urged that cognizance in the present case has

         been taken after an inordinate delay of about nine years and six

         months, without any application seeking condonation of delay

         and without recording satisfaction as mandatorily required

         under Section 473 Cr.P.C. It is further submitted that the

         impugned order reflects complete non-application of judicial

         mind, and that permitting the criminal proceeding to continue

         would amount to an abuse of the process of the court.

                        7. Learned counsel for the State has supported the

         impugned order.

                        8. This Court has carefully considered the rival

         submissions and perused the materials on record.

                        9. At the outset, it is undisputed that the offences

         alleged under Sections 504 and 506 IPC are punishable with

         imprisonment extending up to two years. Consequently, in terms

         of Section 468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., the period of limitation prescribed

         for taking cognizance of such offences is three years. Further, as

         per Section 469(1)(a) Cr.P.C., the limitation period begins to run

         from the date of the offence.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
                                            4/7




                        10. In the present case, the alleged occurrences are

         of 26.05.2015 and 27.05.2015, whereas cognizance has been

         taken after a lapse of approximately nine years and six months

         i.e. on 18.12.2024. Such delay is not merely marginal or

         procedural, but extraordinary and prima facie fatal, unless

         adequately explained and judicially condoned in accordance

         with law.

                        11. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the

         learned court below has taken cognizance in a mechanical and

         routine manner, without adverting to the statutory bar under

         Section 468 Cr.P.C. The order is conspicuously silent on the

         issue of limitation and does not disclose any awareness of the

         fact that cognizance was being taken long after the expiry of the

         prescribed period. More importantly, the order does not record

         any satisfaction or reasons, as mandatorily required under

         Section 473 Cr.P.C., to justify extension of the period of

         limitation.

                        12. It is equally significant that no application

         seeking condonation of delay or extension of limitation was

         ever filed by the prosecution. In the absence of such an

         application, and without recording any reasons demonstrating

         that the delay was either properly explained or that the interests
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
                                            5/7




         of justice demanded extension, the learned Magistrate lacked

         jurisdiction to take cognizance after the expiry of limitation.

                        13. The scheme of Chapter XXXVI of the Code of

         Criminal Procedure makes it abundantly clear that the bar of

         limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C. is not discretionary, but

         mandatory. Section 473 Cr.P.C. carves out a narrow exception,

         permitting extension of limitation only upon a conscious judicial

         determination, supported by recorded reasons. The exercise of

         such discretion must reflect application of mind to the nature of

         the delay, the explanation offered, and the interests of justice.

                        14. In the absence of compliance with these

         statutory requirements, the court is expressly prohibited from

         taking cognizance. Any order passed in disregard of such

         mandate is rendered without jurisdiction and is liable to be set

         aside.

                        15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in State of

         Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335), has

         authoritatively held that criminal proceedings are liable to be

         quashed where their continuation would amount to an abuse of

         the process of law, or where such proceedings are initiated or

         continued in contravention of express statutory provisions. One

         of the recognized categories laid down therein squarely covers
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
                                            6/7




         cases where continuation of proceedings results in manifest

         injustice due to clear legal infirmities.

                        16. Further, in Srinivas Gopal v. Union Territory of

         Arunachal Pradesh (1988 Supp (1) SCR 477), the Hon’ble

         Supreme Court emphasized that the concept of limitation in

         criminal law is not a mere technicality, but a substantive

         safeguard flowing from the guarantee of fair procedure under

         Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court observed that

         inordinate and unexplained delay seriously prejudices the

         accused, as memories fade, evidence disappears, and the ability

         to effectively defend oneself is compromised.

                        17. In paragraphs 8 and 9 of the said judgment, the

         Supreme Court categorically held that when a statute prescribes

         a specific period of limitation for taking cognizance, courts are

         duty-bound to strictly adhere to it. Any extension must be

         preceded by recorded reasons reflecting judicial satisfaction.

         Failure to do so renders the continuation of criminal

         proceedings arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional.

                        18. Applying the aforesaid statutory provisions and

         settled legal principles to the facts of the present case, this Court

         is of the considered view that the impugned order taking

         cognizance is ex-facie illegal, without jurisdiction, and
             Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.19704 of 2025 dt.05-01-2026
                                                         7/7




                      unsustainable in law. The learned court below has failed to

                      notice the mandatory bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. and has not

                      exercised the discretion under Section 473 Cr.P.C. in a judicious

                      manner. The impugned order does not disclose any discussion,

                      satisfaction, or reasoning justifying condonation of an

                      extraordinary delay of more than nine years.

                                     19. Permitting the criminal proceeding to continue

                      in such circumstances would defeat the very object of limitation

                      in criminal law, expose the petitioner to unwarranted

                      harassment, and amount to a misuse of the criminal justice

                      process.

                                     20. Accordingly, the impugned order taking

                      cognizance and the entire criminal proceeding arising therefrom

                      are hereby quashed.

                                     21. The present petition stands allowed.




                                                                   (Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Rajorshi/-
AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          19.01.2026
Transmission Date       19.01.2026