Girish Pandey v. State of U.P. and others), therefore, without calling any counter affidavi

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos. 21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others), therefore, without calling any counter affidavit with the consent of both the parties, the instant application is being disposed of.

3. The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 725 of 2023 as well as charge sheet no. 13 of 2023 dated 05.10.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 09.10.2023 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Varanasi) arising out of Case Crime No. 48-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.1, Varanasi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Village Development Officer and FIR of the present case was lodged against him and several others with the allegation that accused persons misappropriated public fund relating to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and investigation of the case continued upto the year 2023, i.e., for the last 17 years and thus its violated the fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant.

5. He further submits that law is by far now settled that period of investigation should also be considered while considering the fact whether there is any infringement of fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused or not. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharshtra 2 NA528 No. 44924 of 2025 and others, 2008(16) SCC 117.

6. He further submits that there is neither any evidence nor any allegation that due to the applicants investigation continued upto 17 years and, therefore, delay in investigation cannot be attributed to the applicant.

7. He further submits that with regard to the similar allegation as many as 51 FIRs were lodged and when four accused persons of two FIRs approached this Court vide Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos. 21588 of 2025 and 21595 of 2025 then this Court after considering the entire facts of the case vide order dated 28.10.2025 quashed the proceedings pending against them on the ground that their fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated as in those cases also FIR was lodged in the year 2006 and charge sheet was filed after 19 years. He next submits that the observation made by this Court in both these cases shall equally applicable in the present matter.

8. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts charge sheet filed against the applicant and proceeding pending against him should be quashed.

9. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and several others in the year 2006 and charge sheet has been filed in the year 2023, i.e., after 17 years and there is neither any evidence nor any allegation that applicant was responsible for delay in investigation.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute that after considering the fact that investigation of the case continued upto 19 years and delay in investigation was not attributable to the accused persons this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos.21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) and 21595 of 2025 (Radhey Shyam Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others) has quashed the proceedings of the applicants of above cases after considering the fact that their fundamental rights of speedy trial have been violated and the observation made by this Court is equally applicable in the present matter too.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. By way of instant application applicants challenged the charge sheet filed against him and proceedings pending against him on the ground that as investigation of the case continued for 17 years, therefore, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated.

13. As far as facts of the present case are concerned, however, applicant was posted as Village Development Officer and as per allegation he along with other co-accused misappropriated the public fund relating to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and surprisingly investigation of the case continued upto 2023, i.e., for the last 17 years and charge 3 NA528 No. 44924 of 2025 sheet could only be filed in the year 2023.

14. The law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then proceedings pending against him can be quashed unless the Court is of the view that it is not proper in the interest of justice and if such delay is attributable to him. (See: P Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC578).

15. In case at hand, there is neither any allegation nor evidence that due to the applicant investigation continued for 17 years, therefore, delay of 17 years in investigation cannot be attributed to the applicant.

16. Further, considering the fact that on the basis of general and omnibus allegation applicant along with several others has been made accused, therefore, in view of this Court it cannot be said that in the interest of justice proceedings pending against the applicant on the ground of delay in investigation cannot be quashed.

17.Further, it reflects, with regard to the similar allegation, i.e., misappropriation of public fund relating to Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojna as many as 51 FIRs were lodged in the year 2006 and four accused persons of two separate FIRs approached this Court by way of two separate applications moved under Sections 528 BNSS vide Nos. 21588 of 2025 and 21595 of 2025 on the ground that investigation of the case continued for 19 years and after considering entire facts in detail this Court quashed the proceedings pending against them vide order dated 28.10.2025 which has been annexed as annexure-12 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. From the order dated 28.10.2025 it reflects that it is a detailed and reasoned order and after discussing the entire facts and law in detail this Court quashed the entire proceedings on the ground that there was delay of 19 years in concluding the investigation which was not attributable to the above applicants. The observations made by this Court in above two cases is equally applicable in the present matter as in this case also there is delay of 17 years in completing the investigation and there is no reason for this Court to deviate from its opinion.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in considered view of this Court as delay of 17 years in concluding the investigation is not attributable to the applicant and prosecution could not explain the delay, therefore, proceedings pending against the applicant and charge sheet filed against him are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, charge sheet filed against applicant and proceedings pending against him in aforesaid case are quashed.

19. The instant application stands allowed. November 21, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.)

1. Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Narendra Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant and Dr. S. B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State-respondent.

2. The instant matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos. 21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others), therefore, without calling any counter affidavit with the consent of both the parties, the instant application is being disposed of.

3. The instant application has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings of S.T. No. 725 of 2023 as well as charge sheet no. 13 of 2023 dated 05.10.2023 and cognizance/summoning order dated 09.10.2023 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No. 1, Varanasi) arising out of Case Crime No. 48-A of 2006, under Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B and 34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Gadwar, District Ballia pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Court No.1, Varanasi.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant was Village Development Officer and FIR of the present case was lodged against him and several others with the allegation that accused persons misappropriated public fund relating to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and investigation of the case continued upto the year 2023, i.e., for the last 17 years and thus its violated the fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant.

5. He further submits that law is by far now settled that period of investigation should also be considered while considering the fact whether there is any infringement of fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused or not. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharshtra 2 NA528 No. 44924 of 2025 and others, 2008(16) SCC 117.

6. He further submits that there is neither any evidence nor any allegation that due to the applicants investigation continued upto 17 years and, therefore, delay in investigation cannot be attributed to the applicant.

7. He further submits that with regard to the similar allegation as many as 51 FIRs were lodged and when four accused persons of two FIRs approached this Court vide Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos. 21588 of 2025 and 21595 of 2025 then this Court after considering the entire facts of the case vide order dated 28.10.2025 quashed the proceedings pending against them on the ground that their fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated as in those cases also FIR was lodged in the year 2006 and charge sheet was filed after 19 years. He next submits that the observation made by this Court in both these cases shall equally applicable in the present matter.

8. He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts charge sheet filed against the applicant and proceeding pending against him should be quashed.

9. Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and several others in the year 2006 and charge sheet has been filed in the year 2023, i.e., after 17 years and there is neither any evidence nor any allegation that applicant was responsible for delay in investigation.

10. Learned AGA further could not dispute that after considering the fact that investigation of the case continued upto 19 years and delay in investigation was not attributable to the accused persons this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos.21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) and 21595 of 2025 (Radhey Shyam Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others) has quashed the proceedings of the applicants of above cases after considering the fact that their fundamental rights of speedy trial have been violated and the observation made by this Court is equally applicable in the present matter too.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

12. By way of instant application applicants challenged the charge sheet filed against him and proceedings pending against him on the ground that as investigation of the case continued for 17 years, therefore, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated.

13. As far as facts of the present case are concerned, however, applicant was posted as Village Development Officer and as per allegation he along with other co-accused misappropriated the public fund relating to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and surprisingly investigation of the case continued upto 2023, i.e., for the last 17 years and charge 3 NA528 No. 44924 of 2025 sheet could only be filed in the year 2023.

14. The law is settled that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then proceedings pending against him can be quashed unless the Court is of the view that it is not proper in the interest of justice and if such delay is attributable to him. (See: P Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC578).

15. In case at hand, there is neither any allegation nor evidence that due to the applicant investigation continued for 17 years, therefore, delay of 17 years in investigation cannot be attributed to the applicant.

16. Further, considering the fact that on the basis of general and omnibus allegation applicant along with several others has been made accused, therefore, in view of this Court it cannot be said that in the interest of justice proceedings pending against the applicant on the ground of delay in investigation cannot be quashed.

17.Further, it reflects, with regard to the similar allegation, i.e., misappropriation of public fund relating to Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojna as many as 51 FIRs were lodged in the year 2006 and four accused persons of two separate FIRs approached this Court by way of two separate applications moved under Sections 528 BNSS vide Nos. 21588 of 2025 and 21595 of 2025 on the ground that investigation of the case continued for 19 years and after considering entire facts in detail this Court quashed the proceedings pending against them vide order dated 28.10.2025 which has been annexed as annexure-12 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application. From the order dated 28.10.2025 it reflects that it is a detailed and reasoned order and after discussing the entire facts and law in detail this Court quashed the entire proceedings on the ground that there was delay of 19 years in concluding the investigation which was not attributable to the above applicants. The observations made by this Court in above two cases is equally applicable in the present matter as in this case also there is delay of 17 years in completing the investigation and there is no reason for this Court to deviate from its opinion.

18. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in considered view of this Court as delay of 17 years in concluding the investigation is not attributable to the applicant and prosecution could not explain the delay, therefore, proceedings pending against the applicant and charge sheet filed against him are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, charge sheet filed against applicant and proceedings pending against him in aforesaid case are quashed.

19. The instant application stands allowed. November 21, 2025 Ankita (Sameer Jain,J.)