High Court

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 730 of 2024 (Case No. 17416 of 2024) (State Vs. Ashok) arising out of Case Crime No.342 of 2024 under section 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Maharajganj, District- Azamgarh Station-well as as charge sheet No. 331 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.11.2024, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Azamgarh. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of S.T. No. 730 of 2024 (Case No. 17416 of 2024) (State Vs. Ashok) arising out of Case Crime No.342 of 2024 under section 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Maharajganj, District- Azamgarh Station- as well as charge sheet No. 331 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.11.2024, pending in the court of AdditionalSessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Azamgarh, during the pendency of present criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the Applicant will suffer grave irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such any other/ further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is an admitted case to the prosecutrix/first informant- opposite party-2 that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceeding is alleged to have occurred on 09.03.2021. However, the FIR in respect of the same was lodged on 29.08.2024. As such there is a delay of more than three years and five months in lodging the FIR. However the delay/latches in lodging the aforementioned FIR have not been explained in the FIR itself.

5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that subsequent to aforementioned FIR dated 29.08.2024, the statements of the prosecutrix/first informant- opposite party-2 were recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, copies of which are on record at pages 48 and 65 of the paper book. However even in the aforesaid statements, no attempt was made by the prosecutrix/first informant- opposite party- 2 to explain the delay/clatches in lodging the FIR. He, therefore, submits that the FIR is highly belated but the delay/clatches in lodging the FIR remain explained up to this stage.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the judgments of Supreme Court in (i) P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii) P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii) Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 (iv) Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 and (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2024 SCC Online SC 938, wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the ground that the FIR is highly belated but the delay in lodging the FIR was not explained. Much emphasis was laid upon paragraph 5 of judgment of the Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra) wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of an accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

7. Drawing a parallel between the facts of the present case and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgments, the learned counsel for applicant submits that there does not exit any such distinguishable feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so distinguished so as to deny the benefit of the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra). As such the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are therefore liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. It is also contended by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Applicant had extended credit to the prosecutrix/first informant opposite party-2 which transaction was to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/-. The said fact is evident from the documents occurring at page 91 onwards of the paper book. It is only when demand of aforesaid amount was made that the impugned proceedings have been maliciously engineered. On the above premise, it is then urged by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.

9. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State-opposite party-1 has vehementally opposed the present application However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

11. Notice on behalf of State opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

12. Issue notice to first informant opposite party-2.

13. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits within four weeks. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.

14. List this application for admission on 03.07.2025.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No.730 of 2024 (Case No.17416 of 2024) (State Vs. Ashok), arising out of case crime No.342 of 2024, under sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Azamgarh shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 R.S. Tiwari

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the entire proceeding of S.T. No. 730 of 2024 (Case No. 17416 of 2024) (State Vs. Ashok) arising out of Case Crime No.342 of 2024 under section 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Maharajganj, District- Azamgarh Station-well as as charge sheet No. 331 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.11.2024, pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Azamgarh. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the further proceeding of S.T. No. 730 of 2024 (Case No. 17416 of 2024) (State Vs. Ashok) arising out of Case Crime No.342 of 2024 under section 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Maharajganj, District- Azamgarh Station- as well as charge sheet No. 331 of 2024 dated 17.10.2024 and cognizance/ summoning order dated 11.11.2024, pending in the court of AdditionalSessions Judge/ F.T.C.-1, Azamgarh, during the pendency of present criminal misc. application before this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the Applicant will suffer grave irreparable loss and injury. And/or pass such any other/ further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for applicant submits that it is an admitted case to the prosecutrix/first informant- opposite party-2 that the occurrence giving rise to the present criminal proceeding is alleged to have occurred on 09.03.2021. However, the FIR in respect of the same was lodged on 29.08.2024. As such there is a delay of more than three years and five months in lodging the FIR. However the delay/latches in lodging the aforementioned FIR have not been explained in the FIR itself.

5. It is next contended by the learned counsel for applicant that subsequent to aforementioned FIR dated 29.08.2024, the statements of the prosecutrix/first informant- opposite party-2 were recorded under sections 180 and 183 BNSS, copies of which are on record at pages 48 and 65 of the paper book. However even in the aforesaid statements, no attempt was made by the prosecutrix/first informant- opposite party- 2 to explain the delay/clatches in lodging the FIR. He, therefore, submits that the FIR is highly belated but the delay/clatches in lodging the FIR remain explained up to this stage.

6. Learned counsel for applicant has then invited the attention of Court to the judgments of Supreme Court in (i) P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii) P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii) Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 (iv) Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 and (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2024 SCC Online SC 938, wherein the Apex Court quashed the proceedings against the accused therein on the ground that the FIR is highly belated but the delay in lodging the FIR was not explained. Much emphasis was laid upon paragraph 5 of judgment of the Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra) wherein the Apex Court quashed the criminal prosecution of an accused therein on the ground that there is an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR.

7. Drawing a parallel between the facts of the present case and the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in aforementioned judgments, the learned counsel for applicant submits that there does not exit any such distinguishable feature on the basis of which the case of present applicant could be so distinguished so as to deny the benefit of the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti (supra). As such the impugned proceedings cannot be sustained and are therefore liable to be quashed by this Court.

8. It is also contended by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Applicant had extended credit to the prosecutrix/first informant opposite party-2 which transaction was to the tune of Rs.1,70,000/-. The said fact is evident from the documents occurring at page 91 onwards of the paper book. It is only when demand of aforesaid amount was made that the impugned proceedings have been maliciously engineered. On the above premise, it is then urged by learned counsel for applicant that the impugned proceedings are not only malicious but also an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, the same are liable to be quashed by this Court.

9. Per contra, the learned AGA representing State-opposite party-1 has vehementally opposed the present application However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that matter requires consideration.

11. Notice on behalf of State opposite party-1 has been accepted by the learned A.G.A.

12. Issue notice to first informant opposite party-2.

13. All the opposite parties may file their respective counter affidavits within four weeks. Applicant will have two weeks thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.

14. List this application for admission on 03.07.2025.

15. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also the submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant in support of this application as noted herein above, as an interim measure, it is hereby provided that until further orders of this Court, further proceedings in Sessions Trial No.730 of 2024 (Case No.17416 of 2024) (State Vs. Ashok), arising out of case crime No.342 of 2024, under sections 376, 504 I.P.C., Police Station Maharajganj, District Azamgarh now pending in the court of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C.-I, Azamgarh shall remain stayed. Order Date :- 24.4.2025 R.S. Tiwari