State of U.P v. Arun Kumar and Another), arising out of Case Crime No

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, in Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 31.12.2011 as well as orders dated

22.03.2012 and 05.04.2024, of Case No. 3183 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Arun Kumar and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0546 of 2011, under Sections - 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Jakhlaun, District- Lalitpur, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the fertilizer sold to informant and others was manufactured by Nav Bharat Fertilizer Company and the said company has not been made party in this case and thus, the applicant cannot be prosecuted. The Trial court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and summoned the applicant in an arbitrary manner. Applicant was merely working as agent of the said company. Further, there is no evidence of any cheating by impersonation and no offence under Section - 419 I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel submitted that applicant was merely working as agent of the said company and no prima facie case is made out against him. Learned Trial court has not considered the matter in correct perspective and framed the charges against applicant without considering facts and position of law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws :- (i) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 890, (ii) Chandrakant Tripathi Vs. State of U.P; 2025:AHC:4621, (iii) Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar; 2009(1) RCR(Criminal) 802, (iv) Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane; 2015(4) ALL MR (Cri) 2405.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report there are allegations that applicant and co-accused persons have induced the informant and other farmers that if they purchase the fertilizer of Nav Bharat Fertilizer Company, it would provide a good crop and they were selling the same under some scheme. On such inducement, the informant and others have purchased fertilizer from the applicant and co-accused persons and later on it was revealed that the applicant and co-accused persons have sold adulterated and fictitious fertilizer. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. In case of Pankaj Kumar (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In that case there was delay of four years in investigation and eight years in trial and the proceedings were quashed. However, no such inflexible rule has been laid down that in every case proceedings can be quashed if there has been delay of eight years in trial. It appears that undue and unwarranted delay in trial is an important factor while considering prayer of quashing of proceedings but facts and circumstances and all attending facts have to be considered. In case of Vakil Prasad Singh (supra), the charge sheet was filed against appellant on 28th February, 1982 and cognizance was taken on 9th December, 1982. It appears that the police officer, who has conducted the investigation, had no jurisdiction to do so, hence by order dated 07.12.1990, the High Court has directed to complete the investigation within a period of three months and charge sheet was filed on 01.05.2007. There was no evidence of sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Considering those facts, the proceedings of the case were quashed. In case of Chandrakant Tripathi (supra), the complaint was made under Section - 194, 211 I.P.C. in the year 1992 and the accused has faced proceedings for about thirty two years but no witness was examined and in view of these facts proceedings were quashed by this Court. In case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi (supra), there were allegations against the Company but the Company was not made party in the complaint case. The allegations against accused were vague and there was no specific allegation against the accused. In view of considering these facts, the proceedings of the complaint case were quashed.

8. In the instant matter it appears that first information report of this case was registered on 05.10.2011 and charge sheet was submitted on 31.12.2011. It appears that charges were framed vide order dated 05.04.2024. The copy of order-sheet of the Trial court has not been brought on record to show as to which of the party is responsible for delay in trial. In view of these facts and circumstances, impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground of delay in trial.

9. So far the impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2012 is concerned, the same is being challenged after a period of 12-13 years and no explanation for long delay has been shown and thus, the instant application under Section - 528 BNSS in respect of prayer for quashing of charge-sheet as well as summoning order dated

22.03.2012 suffers from vice of long delay and latches. Thus, prayer for quashing of impugned charge-sheet and summoning order is refused.

10. As far as impugned order dated 05.04.2024 is concerned, by that order charges have been framed against applicant and co-accused for offence under Sections - 420, 419 I.P.C.. Main contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the manufacturer company, namely, Nav Bharat Fertilizer Company has not been made party in the criminal proceedings. It appears that while framing the charges, learned Trial court has not considered that fact. Further there is no specific allegation that applicant has cheated the informant by way of impersonation and thus no prima facie case under Section - 419 I.P.C. is made out. In view of these facts and circumstances, it appears that learned Trial court has framed charges in a routine manner without considering whether a prima facie case is made out or not. Thus, the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, by which charges have been framed against applicant for offence under Sections - 419, 420 I.P.C., is not in accordance with law and thus, liable to be quashed.

11. In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 05.04.2024 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned Trial court concerned to consider the matter on point of charge and pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

12. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 S Rawat

1. Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicant, in Court today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. This application under Section 528 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (hereinafter referred to as BNSS) has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings, including charge-sheet dated 31.12.2011 as well as orders dated

22.03.2012 and 05.04.2024, of Case No. 3183 of 2017 (State of U.P. Vs. Arun Kumar and Another), arising out of Case Crime No. 0546 of 2011, under Sections - 419, 420 I.P.C., Police Station - Jakhlaun, District- Lalitpur, pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lalitpur.

4. It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant that the fertilizer sold to informant and others was manufactured by Nav Bharat Fertilizer Company and the said company has not been made party in this case and thus, the applicant cannot be prosecuted. The Trial court has not considered facts of the matter in correct perspective and summoned the applicant in an arbitrary manner. Applicant was merely working as agent of the said company. Further, there is no evidence of any cheating by impersonation and no offence under Section - 419 I.P.C. is made out. Learned counsel submitted that applicant was merely working as agent of the said company and no prima facie case is made out against him. Learned Trial court has not considered the matter in correct perspective and framed the charges against applicant without considering facts and position of law. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance upon following case laws :- (i) Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra; 2008(4) RCR(Criminal) 890, (ii) Chandrakant Tripathi Vs. State of U.P; 2025:AHC:4621, (iii) Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar; 2009(1) RCR(Criminal) 802, (iv) Sharad Kumar Sanghi Vs. Sangita Rane; 2015(4) ALL MR (Cri) 2405.

5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the application and submitted that in the first information report there are allegations that applicant and co-accused persons have induced the informant and other farmers that if they purchase the fertilizer of Nav Bharat Fertilizer Company, it would provide a good crop and they were selling the same under some scheme. On such inducement, the informant and others have purchased fertilizer from the applicant and co-accused persons and later on it was revealed that the applicant and co-accused persons have sold adulterated and fictitious fertilizer. It was submitted that a prima facie case is made out against applicant and there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders.

6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. In case of Pankaj Kumar (supra), it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that right to speedy trial in all criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigations as well. The right to speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. In that case there was delay of four years in investigation and eight years in trial and the proceedings were quashed. However, no such inflexible rule has been laid down that in every case proceedings can be quashed if there has been delay of eight years in trial. It appears that undue and unwarranted delay in trial is an important factor while considering prayer of quashing of proceedings but facts and circumstances and all attending facts have to be considered. In case of Vakil Prasad Singh (supra), the charge sheet was filed against appellant on 28th February, 1982 and cognizance was taken on 9th December, 1982. It appears that the police officer, who has conducted the investigation, had no jurisdiction to do so, hence by order dated 07.12.1990, the High Court has directed to complete the investigation within a period of three months and charge sheet was filed on 01.05.2007. There was no evidence of sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Considering those facts, the proceedings of the case were quashed. In case of Chandrakant Tripathi (supra), the complaint was made under Section - 194, 211 I.P.C. in the year 1992 and the accused has faced proceedings for about thirty two years but no witness was examined and in view of these facts proceedings were quashed by this Court. In case of Sharad Kumar Sanghi (supra), there were allegations against the Company but the Company was not made party in the complaint case. The allegations against accused were vague and there was no specific allegation against the accused. In view of considering these facts, the proceedings of the complaint case were quashed.

8. In the instant matter it appears that first information report of this case was registered on 05.10.2011 and charge sheet was submitted on 31.12.2011. It appears that charges were framed vide order dated 05.04.2024. The copy of order-sheet of the Trial court has not been brought on record to show as to which of the party is responsible for delay in trial. In view of these facts and circumstances, impugned proceedings are not liable to be quashed on the ground of delay in trial.

9. So far the impugned summoning order dated 22.03.2012 is concerned, the same is being challenged after a period of 12-13 years and no explanation for long delay has been shown and thus, the instant application under Section - 528 BNSS in respect of prayer for quashing of charge-sheet as well as summoning order dated

22.03.2012 suffers from vice of long delay and latches. Thus, prayer for quashing of impugned charge-sheet and summoning order is refused.

10. As far as impugned order dated 05.04.2024 is concerned, by that order charges have been framed against applicant and co-accused for offence under Sections - 420, 419 I.P.C.. Main contention of learned counsel for the applicant is that the manufacturer company, namely, Nav Bharat Fertilizer Company has not been made party in the criminal proceedings. It appears that while framing the charges, learned Trial court has not considered that fact. Further there is no specific allegation that applicant has cheated the informant by way of impersonation and thus no prima facie case under Section - 419 I.P.C. is made out. In view of these facts and circumstances, it appears that learned Trial court has framed charges in a routine manner without considering whether a prima facie case is made out or not. Thus, the impugned order dated 05.04.2024, by which charges have been framed against applicant for offence under Sections - 419, 420 I.P.C., is not in accordance with law and thus, liable to be quashed.

11. In view of aforesaid, impugned order dated 05.04.2024 is set aside and matter is remanded back to the learned Trial court concerned to consider the matter on point of charge and pass an order afresh in accordance with law, after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties.

12. The application under Section 528 BNSS is disposed of in above terms. Order Date :- 19.8.2025 S Rawat