HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32762 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicants and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been preferred for quashing charge-sheet dated 08.02.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.21598 of 2024 (State Vs. Brijesh Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1185 of 2016, under sections 353, 332, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ballia, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia. 3. Learned counsel for applicants has submitted that in the instant case, an FIR was lodged by opposite party no.2 against the applicants on dated 21.08.2016 and after thorough investigation, concerned Investigating Officer preferred police report/charge-sheet on dated 08.02.2020, whereupon cognizance of offence was taken up by learned court concerned vide order dated 18.10.2024 in pursuance to sections 353, 332, 504, 506 IPC. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that maximum punishment for commission of the alleged offences as mentioned above, is three years, and as such 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 summoning the applicant-accused is dated 18.10.2024 i.e. after more than eight 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. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Kameshwar Singh, Sudhanshu Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Avinash Upadhyay And 5 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) 5. After having the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties, it is apparent that the maximum punishment for the alleged offences, is of imprisonment up to three years and as per the provision contained in Section 468 (2)(c), the limitation for taking cognizance of an offence will be three years 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)(c) Cr.P.C., charge-sheet dated 08.02.2020 and cognizance/summoning order dated 18.10.2024 as well as the entire proceedings of Case No.21598 of 2024 (State Vs. Brijesh Singh and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.1185 of 2016, under sections 353, 332, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District- Ballia, pending in the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. October 14, 2025 Saif NA528 No. 32762 of 2025 2 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad