AADHAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
            MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 10401 of 2026

Aadhar Construction Company
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Abou Sofian Usmani, Meraj Khan,
                                  Sunil Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Gopal Srivastava

Court No. - 55
                 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent
no. 2 and learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. The petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"I. To set aside the impugned order dated 18.02.2026 passed by the
learned Court of Second Additional Session Judge, Gautam Buddh
Nagar, in Criminal Revision No. 221 of 2019 (Aadhar Construction
Company Vs. State of U.P. and another). (Annexure No. 8 with this
petition)

II. To set aside the impugned order dated 23.07.2019 passed by the
learned Court of Additional Court No. 1, Gautam Buddh Nagar in
Complaint Case No. 391 of 2016 (Bhardwaj Builders Vs Aadhar
Construction Company), related to Police Station Sector 39, Noida,
District Gautam Buddh Nagar, Whereby the learned Court of Additional
Court No. 1, Gautam Buddh Nagar has dismissed the application dated
11.06.2018 of the petitioner (Annexure No. 6 with this petition)."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is the
accused. Initially complaint was filed on behalf of Bhardwaj Builders by
one Brijesh Kumar. Subsequently an application was filed by one Ishwar
Chand Sharma that he is the proprietor of Bhardwaj Builders and as such
he may be permitted to pursue the case and Brijesh Kumar was the
servant who has left the job. Learned counsel for the petitioner further
                                                                                            A227 No. 10401 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    submits that petitioner filed an application under Section 258 of Cr.P.C.
                                    for stopping the proceedings on the ground that original proprietor has
                                    abandoned the proceedings and as such the proceedings cannot be
                                    proceeded with.

                                    4. Section 258 of Cr.P.C. is quoted hereinbelow:-

                                    "258. Power to stop proceedings in certain cases. - In any summons-case
                                    instituted otherwise than upon complaint, a Magistrate of the first class
                                    or, with the previous sanction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, any other
                                    Judicial Magistrate, may, for reasons to be recorded by him, stop the
                                    proceedings at any stage without pronouncing any judgment and where
                                    such stoppage of proceedings is made after the evidence of the principal
                                    witnesses has been recorded, pronounce a judgment of acquittal, and in
                                    any other case, release the accused, and such release shall have the effect
                                    of discharge."

                                    5. A perusal of aforesaid section would go to show that same is applicable
                                    in respect of summons case instituted otherwise than upon complaint. The
                                    revisional court has rejected the contention of the petitioner with regard to
                                    applicability of Section 258 Cr.P.C. on the ground that Section 258
                                    Cr.P.C. is not applicable to complaint case. This Court does not find any
                                    error in the view taken by the revisional court. Therefore, no interference
                                    is warranted. However, considering the fact that complaint was filed in
                                    the year 2003 and the same is pending, the trial court is directed to
                                    proceed with the complaint case and conclude the proceedings within a
                                    period of six months without giving any adjournment to the parties.

                                    6. With the aforesaid observation/direction, the petition is disposed of.



                                                                                       (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)
                                    September 29, 2026
                                    VMA




Digitally signed by :-
VISHWA MOHAN ARORA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad