2026:UHC:3819 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C4 8 2 / 2 0 1 / 2 0 1 9 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, 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. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 18.05.2026 Mamta MAMTA RANI Digitally signed by MAMTA RANI 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'