Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106612 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21932 of 2025 Applicant :- Girinath Verma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Manoj Yadav, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Electricity Department as well as learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. The present application has been preferred challenging chargesheet dated 24.08.2024 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 24.04.2025 along with entire proceedings of S.T. No.427 of 2025 (State Vs. Girinath Verma), arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2022, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, Police Station Anti Power Theft, District Ballia, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Ballia. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that in the instant case, the incident in question is stated to have been occurred on 20.01.2022 regarding which an FIR was lodged on 21.01.2022, and after investigation, police report was submitted on 24.08.2024 whereupon cognizance of offence was taken on dated 24.04.2025 by learned court concerned. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that maximum punishment for commission of the alleged offences, is three years, 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 24.04.2025 i.e. after more than three years of lodging of the FIR and as such, entire proceedings of the present case, may be liable to be quashed. 4. Per contra, Sri Pawan Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Electricity Department as well as 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 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., chargesheet dated 24.08.2024 and cognizance as well as summoning order dated 24.04.2025 along with entire proceedings of S.T. No.427 of 2025 (State Vs. Girinath Verma), arising out of Case Crime No.6 of 2022, under Section 135 of Electricity Act, Police Station Anti Power Theft, District Ballia, pending in the court of learned Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge, Ballia, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Vivek Kr. Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad