State v. Chandra Shekhar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No

vs. Chandra Shekhar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Rudrapur, District Deoria, pending in the court of A.D.J./F.T.C.-II, Deoria.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of one case shown in gang chart. The investigating officer without proper investigation submitted chargesheet against the applicants. Learned trial court framed charges against the applicants on 19.7.2024 and overlooked the Rules and only two witnesses have been examined in this case though they are facing criminal trial for last seven years.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgnent of the Apex Court in Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 LawSuit (SC) 804.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that in base case, arising out of Case Crime No. 1154 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 304 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal 2 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025 Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rudrapur, District Deoria, the applicants have been convicted by the trial court and thereafter preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018 which was partly allowed and all the appellants/applicants were sentenced to period already undergone by each of them and fine was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- with a direction to pay to the victim, therefore, the conviction of the appellants/applicants was affirmed by this Court also in Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018. He further submitted that the applicants could have raised objection at the time of cognizance which was taken by the learned trial court on 6.12.2018 and no such objection was raised by him when the charge was framed on 19.7.2024. It is further submitted that judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the present case. Prayer made by the applicants is not maintainable.

6. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present matter, F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at P.S. Rudrapur, District Deoria, on 7.8.2014. Thereafter chargesheet was submitted in this case on 10.2.2015 and the learned trial court took cognizance vide order dated 6.12.2018. The applicants were summoned to face criminal trial and in pursuance of summoning order, they appeared before the learned trial court and charge was framed by the learned trial court on 19.7.2024.

8. The applicants at any point of time have not raised any objection that gang chart is illegal and they cannot be prosecuted on the basis of proceedings of gang chart which was prepared on 30.7.2014. After 11 years from the date of preparation of gang chart, the present application has been filed wherein it is prayed that proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 43 of 2018 (State vs. Chandra Shekhar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, be quashed against the present applicants. The latches have not been properly explained by the applicants and it is nowhere mentioned as to what stopped them in filing the present application at such a belated stage.

9. Section 465 of Cr.P.C. deals with irregularities of the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation order, judgment or other proceedings 3 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025 before or during trial. For kind reference, Section 465 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- "465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.—(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation of revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; 2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, has dealt with Section 465 of Cr.P.C. In this judgment it is stated that an irregular proceedings at a belated stage may not be challenged, if it is not challenged earlier. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of Pradeep (Supra) is quoted as under: "49.5.The delay in the commencement of trial—The first information report was registered on 9-10-2014 in the first of the batch of cases in the present set of cases. The charge-sheet was submitted on 29-12-2015. Between December 2015 and March 2017, the accused participated in the proceedings. On 30-12-2015, the Special Judge recorded that he had perused the final report and that he was taking cognizance. Summons were directed to be issued to the accused. After cognizance was taken on 30-12-2015, several proceedings took place before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bengaluru City including on 16-1-2016 when some of the accused were admitted to bail. On 17-3- 2017, arguments were addressed before the Special Judge by the Special 4 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025 Public Prosecutor on the charges. The High Court was moved for quashing under Section 482CrPC on 20-3-2017 at that stage. Significantly in the proceedings before the High Court, no ground of challenge was addressed on the basis of the submission (now urged before this Court) that in the absence of a committal order by the Magistrate, the proceedings before the Special Judge suffered for want of jurisdiction. The submission which has been urged before this Court for the first time, purportedly on the ground that a pure question of law is involved, cannot efface the factual position that from the date of the submission of the charge-sheet in 2015 until the filing of the quashing petition on 20-3-2017, the accused participated in the proceedings before the Special Judge and raised no objection at any time either before the Special Judge or before the High Court. Therefore, the challenge to the irregularity in taking cognizance was not made at the earliest. Though it was made before the conclusion of the trial, the challenge after two years would still amount to a considerable delay, when there were opportunities for it to have been raised earlier.

108.2. The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial. Section 465CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well. Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465CrPC.

108.3. The decision in Gangula Ashok [Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., (2000) 2 SCC 504 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 488] was distinguished in Rattiram [Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 481] based on the stage of trial. This differentiation based on the stage of trial must be read with reference to Section 465(2)CrPC. Section 465(2) does not indicate that it only covers challenges to pre-trial orders after the conclusion of the trial. The cardinal principle that guides Section 465(2)CrPC is that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest. While determining if there was a failure of justice, the courts ought to address it with reference to the stage of challenge, the seriousness of the offence and the apparent intention to prolong proceedings, among others. 5 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025

108.4. In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the appellant two years after cognizance was taken. No reason was given to explain the inordinate delay. Moreover, in view of the diminished role of the committal court under Section 209 of the Code of 1973 as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence, no failure of justice has been demonstrated.

108.5. It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. However, the cognizance order indicates that the Special Judge has perused all the relevant material relating to the case before cognizance was taken. The change in the form of the order would not alter its effect. Therefore, no “failure of justice” under Section 465CrPC is proved. This irregularity would thus not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465CrPC."

11. In the present matter, the proceedings of trial has been challenged at a belated stage and latches have not been properly explained. More so, the other two witnesses have already been examined in the trial and trial is at advanced stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter and proceedings arising out of F.I.R. dated 7.8.2014, registered as Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, can not be quashed at such a belated stage. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the present application u/s 528 of BNSS is dismissed. November 12, 2025 A.P. Pandey (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)

vs. Chandra Shekhar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, P.S. Rudrapur, District Deoria, pending in the court of A.D.J./F.T.C.-II, Deoria.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants have been falsely implicated in the present case on the basis of one case shown in gang chart. The investigating officer without proper investigation submitted chargesheet against the applicants. Learned trial court framed charges against the applicants on 19.7.2024 and overlooked the Rules and only two witnesses have been examined in this case though they are facing criminal trial for last seven years.

4. Learned counsel for the applicants has relied upon a judgnent of the Apex Court in Vinod Bihari Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 LawSuit (SC) 804.

5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that in base case, arising out of Case Crime No. 1154 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 308, 323, 504, 304 of I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal 2 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025 Law Amendment Act, P.S. Rudrapur, District Deoria, the applicants have been convicted by the trial court and thereafter preferred a Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018 which was partly allowed and all the appellants/applicants were sentenced to period already undergone by each of them and fine was enhanced to Rs. 50,000/- with a direction to pay to the victim, therefore, the conviction of the appellants/applicants was affirmed by this Court also in Criminal Appeal No. 4922 of 2018. He further submitted that the applicants could have raised objection at the time of cognizance which was taken by the learned trial court on 6.12.2018 and no such objection was raised by him when the charge was framed on 19.7.2024. It is further submitted that judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicants is not applicable in the present case. Prayer made by the applicants is not maintainable.

6. I have heard rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. In the present matter, F.I.R. was lodged as Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, under Section 3(1) of U.P. Gangster and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986, at P.S. Rudrapur, District Deoria, on 7.8.2014. Thereafter chargesheet was submitted in this case on 10.2.2015 and the learned trial court took cognizance vide order dated 6.12.2018. The applicants were summoned to face criminal trial and in pursuance of summoning order, they appeared before the learned trial court and charge was framed by the learned trial court on 19.7.2024.

8. The applicants at any point of time have not raised any objection that gang chart is illegal and they cannot be prosecuted on the basis of proceedings of gang chart which was prepared on 30.7.2014. After 11 years from the date of preparation of gang chart, the present application has been filed wherein it is prayed that proceedings of Special Session Trial No. 43 of 2018 (State vs. Chandra Shekhar Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, be quashed against the present applicants. The latches have not been properly explained by the applicants and it is nowhere mentioned as to what stopped them in filing the present application at such a belated stage.

9. Section 465 of Cr.P.C. deals with irregularities of the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation order, judgment or other proceedings 3 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025 before or during trial. For kind reference, Section 465 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:- "465. Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission or irregularity.—(1) Subject to the provisions hereinbefore contained, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered by a court of appeal, confirmation of revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial or in any inquiry or other proceedings under this Code, or any error, or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution, unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby; 2) In determining whether any error, omission or irregularity in any proceeding under this Code, or any error or irregularity in any sanction for the prosecution has occasioned a failure of justice, the Court shall have regard to the fact whether the objection could and should have been raised at an earlier stage in the proceedings.” (emphasis supplied)

10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pradeep S. Wodeyar vs. State of Karnataka, (2021) 19 SCC 62, has dealt with Section 465 of Cr.P.C. In this judgment it is stated that an irregular proceedings at a belated stage may not be challenged, if it is not challenged earlier. The relevant paragraph of the judgment of Pradeep (Supra) is quoted as under: "49.5.The delay in the commencement of trial—The first information report was registered on 9-10-2014 in the first of the batch of cases in the present set of cases. The charge-sheet was submitted on 29-12-2015. Between December 2015 and March 2017, the accused participated in the proceedings. On 30-12-2015, the Special Judge recorded that he had perused the final report and that he was taking cognizance. Summons were directed to be issued to the accused. After cognizance was taken on 30-12-2015, several proceedings took place before the 23rd Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Bengaluru City including on 16-1-2016 when some of the accused were admitted to bail. On 17-3- 2017, arguments were addressed before the Special Judge by the Special 4 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025 Public Prosecutor on the charges. The High Court was moved for quashing under Section 482CrPC on 20-3-2017 at that stage. Significantly in the proceedings before the High Court, no ground of challenge was addressed on the basis of the submission (now urged before this Court) that in the absence of a committal order by the Magistrate, the proceedings before the Special Judge suffered for want of jurisdiction. The submission which has been urged before this Court for the first time, purportedly on the ground that a pure question of law is involved, cannot efface the factual position that from the date of the submission of the charge-sheet in 2015 until the filing of the quashing petition on 20-3-2017, the accused participated in the proceedings before the Special Judge and raised no objection at any time either before the Special Judge or before the High Court. Therefore, the challenge to the irregularity in taking cognizance was not made at the earliest. Though it was made before the conclusion of the trial, the challenge after two years would still amount to a considerable delay, when there were opportunities for it to have been raised earlier.

108.2. The objective of Section 465 is to prevent the delay in the commencement and completion of trial. Section 465CrPC is applicable to interlocutory orders such as an order taking cognizance and summons order as well. Therefore, even if the order taking cognizance is irregular, it would not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465CrPC.

108.3. The decision in Gangula Ashok [Gangula Ashok v. State of A.P., (2000) 2 SCC 504 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 488] was distinguished in Rattiram [Rattiram v. State of M.P., (2012) 4 SCC 516 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 481] based on the stage of trial. This differentiation based on the stage of trial must be read with reference to Section 465(2)CrPC. Section 465(2) does not indicate that it only covers challenges to pre-trial orders after the conclusion of the trial. The cardinal principle that guides Section 465(2)CrPC is that the challenge to an irregular order must be urged at the earliest. While determining if there was a failure of justice, the courts ought to address it with reference to the stage of challenge, the seriousness of the offence and the apparent intention to prolong proceedings, among others. 5 NA528 No. 41222 of 2025

108.4. In the instant case, the cognizance order was challenged by the appellant two years after cognizance was taken. No reason was given to explain the inordinate delay. Moreover, in view of the diminished role of the committal court under Section 209 of the Code of 1973 as compared to the role of the committal court under the erstwhile Code of 1898, the gradation of irregularity in a cognizance order made in Sections 460 and 461 and the seriousness of the offence, no failure of justice has been demonstrated.

108.5. It is a settled principle of law that cognizance is taken of the offence and not the offender. However, the cognizance order indicates that the Special Judge has perused all the relevant material relating to the case before cognizance was taken. The change in the form of the order would not alter its effect. Therefore, no “failure of justice” under Section 465CrPC is proved. This irregularity would thus not vitiate the proceedings in view of Section 465CrPC."

11. In the present matter, the proceedings of trial has been challenged at a belated stage and latches have not been properly explained. More so, the other two witnesses have already been examined in the trial and trial is at advanced stage, therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter and proceedings arising out of F.I.R. dated 7.8.2014, registered as Case Crime No. 1286 of 2014, can not be quashed at such a belated stage. The present application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.

12. Accordingly, the present application u/s 528 of BNSS is dismissed. November 12, 2025 A.P. Pandey (Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)