Allahabad High Court
Girish Pandey vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 28 October, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:188900
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21588 of 2025
Reserved on 17.09.2025
Delivered on 28.10.2025
Girish Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
with
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21594 of 2025
Smt. Mangari Devi And 3 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
With
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21595 of 2025
Radhey Shyam Ram And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Rakesh Kumar Mishra, Vijit Saxena
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 73
HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. These applications are being disposed of by a common order as these applications are being pressed on sole ground of infringement of fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicants.
2. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, leaned counsel for applicants and Dr. S.B. Maurya, learned AGA-I for the State.
3. Applicants made following prayers:-
"(i) Applicant Girish Pandey made prayer to quash Charge-sheet No.7 of 2025 dated 27.03.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 13.05.2025 as well as Special Trial No. 401 of 2025 (State Vs. Girish Pandey and others) arising out of Case Crime No.65B of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 201, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Bansdih, District Ballia pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi.
(ii) Applicants Smt. Mangari Devi and 3 others made prayer to quash Charge-sheet No.9A dated 08.04.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.05.2025 as well as Special Trial No. 439 of 2025 (State Vs. Ras Bihari Chaubey and others) arising out of Case Crime No.65A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 201, 120B, 34 IPC and Section 13(2) P.C. Act, Police Station Bansdih, District Ballia pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi.
(iii) Applicants Radhey Shyam Ram and 2 others made prayer to quash Charge-sheet No.9 dated 17.02.2024 and supplementary charge-sheet no.9A dated 08.04.2025, cognizance/summoning order dated 21.05.2025 as well as Special Trial No. 439 of 2025 (State Vs. Ras Bihari Chaubey and others) arising out of Case Crime No.65A of 2006, under Sections 409, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 218, 201, 120B, 34 IPC, Police Station Bansdih, District Ballia pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi."
Arguments advanced on behalf of applicants
4. Learned counsel for applicants submits, these applications are being pressed only on the sole ground that First Information Reports in all these cases were lodged in the year 2006 and charge-sheets could only be filed against applicants after 19 years and therefore fundamental right of speedy trial of applicants have been violated. He next submits, right of speedy trial even includes the period of investigation.
5. He further submits, in all the First Information Reports there are allegations of irregularities against the applicants in implementing the Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna.
6. He further submits, First Information Reports of all these cases were lodged in the year 2006 with regard to the alleged irregularities and misappropriation committed by the applicants from the year 2002 to the year 2004.
7. He next submits, there is not only delay of more than 19 years in concluding the investigation but there is also delay of two years in lodging the FIRs of these cases. He further submits, right of speedy trial is fundamental right of an accused and on its violation the proceedings pending against him can be quashed.
8. He next submits, however, applicants are facing trial under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act but on the ground of violation of fundamental right of speedy trial, even proceedings relate to provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act can be quashed.
9. He further submits, as there is delay of 19 years in completing the investigation, therefore, delay cannot be attributed to the applicants.
10. He placed reliance on the following judgments:-
1. Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak 1992 CrLJ 2717
2. Dr. Sarbesh Bhattacharjee Vs. State NCT Delhi WP (Crl) 781 of 2021
3. Madan Mohan Saxena Vs. State of U.P. 2023 (3) ALJ 7
4. Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (1) SCC 149
5. Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others 2008 (16) SCC 117
11. He further submits, therefore, proceedings pending against applicants are liable to be quashed.
Arguments advanced on behalf of the State
12. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer and submits, applicants committed serious offence of misappropriation of public fund and they were responsible to distribute the grains to the beneficiaries but instead of doing so they misappropriated the public money and it cannot be said that alleged offences are not made out against them but he could not dispute the fact that First Information Reports of all these cases were lodged in the year 2006 and charge-sheets against them were filed after 19 years in the year 2025. Learned AGA could not attribute the delay in investigation to the applicants.
13. Learned AGA however further submitted that in cases like present one it is not desirable to quash the proceedings merely on the ground of delay in investigation.
Conclusion and analysis
14. The only issue before this Court in these applications is that whether on the ground of delay in investigation, proceedings pending against applicants can be quashed or not.
15. In cases at hand, all the First Information Reports of these cases were lodged against applicants in the year 2006 with similar allegations that they misappropriated the public fund related to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but charge-sheet in these cases were filed after investigation in the year 2025 i.e. after 19 years, therefore, investigation of these cases continued for 19 years and State could not provide any explanation in this regard.
16. The right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra) held that right of speedy trial even includes the period of investigation.
17. The Apex Court in case of Mahendra Lal Das (supra) on which reliance was placed by learned counsel for the applicants after considering the judgment of Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay (supra) held that in cases of corruption the amount involved is not material but speedy justice is the mandate of the Constitution being in the interests of the accused as well as that of society. The Supreme Court further held that cases relating to corruption are to be dealt with swiftly, promptly and without delay and when delay is found to have been caused during the investigation, inquiry or trial, the concerned appropriate authorities are under obligation to find out and deal with the persons responsible for such delay.
18. In case at hand, it reflects, investigating agency was responsible for delay in investigation which continued upto 19 years and even from the counter affidavit filed by the State it could not be reflected, the delay of 19 years in concluding the investigation was attributable to the applicants.
19. Further, in case of Ramanand Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1994 SC 948 proceedings were quashed by Supreme Court on account of delay of 13 years in granting sanction and even in case of Mahendra Lal Das (supra), the Apex Court quashed the proceedings on the ground of delay in investigation.
20. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar (supra) also held that it is well settled that right of speedy trial in all the criminal persecutions is an inalienable right under Article 21 of the Constitution and this right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigation as well. The Supreme Court further held, the right of speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases.
21. The Apex Court further held, where the Court finds that right of speedy trial of an accused has been infringed, the charges or the conviction, as the case may be, may be quashed unless the Court feels that it is not proper to quash the proceedings in the interest of justice and after considering the seven Judges Constitution Bench judgement passed in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioner after considering that there is inordinate and unexplainable delay of eight years in investigation.
22. The Apex Court in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 has observed that right of speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty.
23. Therefore from the above judgments of the Apex Court it is apparent that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused and right of speedy trial does not confine only to the Court proceedings but if there is long delay in concluding the investigation then also fundamental right of speedy trial of accused violates.
24. From the above judgments of the Apex Court, it is also apparent that if right of speedy trial of an accused has been violated then proceedings can be quashed, if the delay is not attributable to the accused.
25. In the present cases, there is neither any evidence nor even any allegation that applicants are responsible for prolong investigation which continued upto 19 years and even State could not provide any explanation why investigation of the cases continued for 19 years, therefore, prima facie right of speedy trial of the applicants have been violated.
26. Further, considering the fact that First Information Reports of these cases were lodged in the year 2006 with regard to alleged misappropriation committed by the applicants in the year 2002-2004 and applicants have been made accused along with more than 100 persons with general allegations, in considered view of this Court on the ground of delay of more than 19 years in concluding the investigation the proceedings pending against the applicants should be quashed as continuation of proceedings would be the travesty of justice.
27. Accordingly, respective proceedings pending against applicants are hereby quashed.
28. All the applications stand allowed.
(Sameer Jain,J.)
October 28, 2025
AK Pandey
