Uttarakhand High Court
C482/201/2019 on 18 May, 2026
2026:UHC:3819
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
C482/201/2019
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A.
along with Mr. Manoj Bhatt, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
3. Present C-482 application has been
filed seeking quashing of the chargesheet,
cognizance/summoning order dated
01.12.2018 passed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Rudrapur, District Udham
Singh Nagar in Criminal Case No.10291 of
2018, under Sections 115 and 116 I.P.C.,
Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to
Disaffection) Act, 1922, Sections 3 and 4
of the Police Forces (Restriction of Rights)
Act, 1966 and Sections 65 and 66 of the
I.T. Act, as well as the entire proceedings
of the aforesaid criminal case.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the F.I.R. was lodged
alleging therein that a programme namely
“Mission Aakrosh” was convened on
31.08.2015, which according to the
prosecution was an unlawful gathering. It
has further been alleged that the present
applicant had made certain posts on
Facebook in connection with the said
“Mission Aakrosh”, wherein statements
were allegedly made against departmental
proceedings initiated against police
personnel and thereby dissatisfaction was
sought to be created amongst members of
2026:UHC:3819
the police force.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
would further submit that on the basis of
the aforesaid Facebook posts, allegations
were levelled that the applicant had
incited police personnel not to discharge
their official duties and had attempted to
create disaffection within the police force;
that, after investigation, the Investigating
Officer submitted chargesheet dated
20.11.2018, upon which cognizance was
taken by the learned Magistrate on
01.12.2018.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant
would submit that the alleged incident
pertains to the year 2015 and the F.I.R.
itself came to be lodged on 01.09.2015. It
is contended that the maximum
punishment prescribed for the offences
alleged against the applicant does not
exceed three years and, therefore, the bar
of limitation contained under Section 468
Cr.P.C. squarely applies to the facts of the
present case. He would submit that
Section 468(2) Cr.P.C. specifically
prescribes the period of limitation for
taking cognizance of offences, namely: (i)
six months where the offence is
punishable with fine only; (ii) one year
where the offence is punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding one year; and
(iii) three years where the offence is
punishable with imprisonment exceeding
one year but not exceeding three years.
7. He further submit that even if the
entire allegations levelled in the F.I.R. are
taken at their face value, the offences
alleged against the applicant are
punishable with imprisonment not
2026:UHC:3819
exceeding three years. Thus, according to
learned counsel, cognizance of the alleged
offences could not legally have been taken
beyond the statutory period of limitation
prescribed under Section 468 Cr.P.C.
8. He would further submit that since
the alleged occurrence admittedly relates
to the year 2015 and the F.I.R. was lodged
on 01.09.2015, the period of limitation
prescribed for taking cognizance expired
in the year 2018 itself. However, the
learned court below proceeded to take
cognizance vide order dated 01.12.2018,
i.e. after expiry of the statutory period of
limitation. It is contended that no order
extending or condoning the delay under
Section 473 Cr.P.C. was ever passed by
the court concerned and, therefore, the
impugned cognizance/ summoning order
is wholly without jurisdiction and liable to
be quashed.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant
would also submit that the applicant was
serving in the Police Department and, on
account of the present F.I.R.,
departmental proceedings were also
initiated against him, culminating in his
dismissal from service. It is thus argued
that continuation of the criminal
proceedings, despite the express statutory
bar contained under Section 468 Cr.P.C.,
amounts to gross abuse of the process of
the Court and, therefore, the impugned
proceedings deserve to be quashed in
exercise of inherent jurisdiction.
10. This Court has considered the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the material
brought on record.
2026:UHC:3819
11. It is not disputed that the alleged
incident pertains to the year 2015 and the
F.I.R. was lodged on 01.09.2015. It is also
admitted that cognizance upon the
chargesheet was taken by the learned
Magistrate on 01.12.2018. From perusal
of the offences alleged against the
applicant, it is evident that the maximum
punishment prescribed does not exceed
three years. Therefore, in view of Section
468(2)(c) Cr.P.C., cognizance could not
have been taken after expiry of three years
from the date of the alleged offence.
Admittedly, no order extending the period
of limitation in exercise of powers under
Section 473 Cr.P.C. has been passed by
the court below.
12. In such view of the matter, the
cognizance/summoning order dated
01.12.2018 having been passed beyond
the prescribed period of limitation is not
sustainable in the eyes of law.
Accordingly, the present C-482 application
is allowed. The cognizance/summoning
order dated 01.12.2018 passed by the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Rudrapur,
District Udham Singh Nagar in Criminal
Case No.10291 of 2018, as well as the
entire proceedings of the aforesaid
criminal case, are hereby quashed qua the
applicant.
13. Pending application(s), if any, shall
also stand disposed of.
MAMTA
RANI (Alok Mahra, J.)
18.05.2026
Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI
Mamta DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=6a812005bebfcf46f244f3e584af1449e430ef90
0bf09a6d67ebbd642671329b, postalCode=263001,
st=Uttarakhand,
serialNumber=5de1751a4f1d9cabfd54852c9e68911ca
8b66dd26690a191648ab5d8dd004ef0, cn=MAMTA
RANI
Date: 2026.05.20 10:44:39 +05’30’
