HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 27686 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 24.06.2020 and cognizance order dated 29.07.2021 along with entire proceedings of Case No.26753 of 2021 (State Vs. Naveen Kumar Agarwal), arising out of Case Crime No.596 of 2017, under Section 448 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that in the instant case, FIR was lodged on 11.07.2017, and after investigation, police report was submitted on 24.06.2020 whereupon cognizance of offence was taken on dated 29.07.2021 by learned court concerned. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that maximum punishment for commission of the alleged offence, is one year therefore, the bar under Section 468 Cr.P.C. would become operative and the proceedings would be barred by limitation, since the order passed by learned court concerned for taking cognizance, is of dated 29.07.2021 i.e. after more than four years of lodging of the FIR and as such, entire proceedings of the present case, may be liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer sought through the instant application but could not dispute the provision of Section 468 Cr.P.C. 5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that the maximum punishment for the alleged offence, is of Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Naveen Kumar Agarwal .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) imprisonment up to one year and as per the provision contained in Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., the limitation for taking cognizance of an offence will be one year and no court can take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of period of limitation. 6. In the case of Sarah Mathew v. Institute of Cardio Vascular Diseases, (2014) 2 SCC 62, Hon'ble the Supreme Court held that for the purpose of computing the period of limitation under Section 468 Cr.P.C., the relevant date is the date of filing of the complaint or the date of institution of prosecution and not the date on which the Magistrate takes cognizance. The expression 'institution of prosecution' would be wide enough to include within its ambit institution of prosecution either by filing of a complaint or by lodging of an FIR. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as considering the provisions of Section 468(2)(b) Cr.P.C., chargesheet dated 24.06.2020 and cognizance order dated 29.07.2021 along with entire proceedings of Case No.26753 of 2021 (State Vs. Naveen Kumar Agarwal), arising out of Case Crime No.596 of 2017, under Section 448 IPC, Police Station New Agra, District Agra, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. October 13, 2025 Vivek Kr. NA528 No. 27686 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad