Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:133128 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29566 of 2024 Applicant :- Sajid Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Amir Khan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA for the State. 2. The present application has been preferred for quashing charge- sheet dated 18.12.2020 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2023 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1771 of 2023 (State Vs. Sajid and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.391 of 2020, under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station- Pahasu, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr. 3. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that in the instant case, on account of an information through Mukhbir Khas that at Village Fatiyabad Road inside the streetlight some persons are involved in gambling, an FIR was lodged on 02.12.2020 and after investigation, police report/charge-sheet was submitted on 18.12.2020, whereupon cognizance of offence was taken up on dated 06.09.2023 by learned court concerned. Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that maximum punishment for commission of the alleged offence, is a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or to imprisonment, either simple or rigorous, for any term not exceeding one calendar month 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 06.09.2023, i.e. after more than six months 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 offences, is a fine not exceeding fifty rupees, or to imprisonment, either simple or rigorous, for any term not exceeding one calendar month and as per the provision contained in Section 468 (2)(a), the limitation for taking cognizance of an offence will be six months and no court can take cognizance of the offence after the expiry of period of limitation. 6. 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)(a) Cr.P.C., charge- sheet dated 18.12.2020 along with cognizance/summoning order dated 06.09.2023 and the entire proceedings of Criminal Case No.1771 of 2023 (State Vs. Sajid and Others) arising out of Case Crime No.391 of 2020, under Section 13 of Public Gambling Act, 1867, Police Station- Pahasu, District- Bulandshahr, pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ Judicial Magistrate, Khurja, Bulandshahr, are hereby quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant application stands allowed. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 Saif Digitally signed by :- SHAIKH SAIF ABDIN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad