Allahabad High Court

MUKHTAR AHMADversusState of UP AND ANOTHER

Decided: 10 September 2026
Bench: VIKRAM D CHAUHAN

Holding

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings against the applicant on the ground of violation of the right to a speedy trial due to inordinate delay.

Summary

The applicant, Mukhtar Ahmad, filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC seeking to quash a charge sheet and cognizance order issued by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) in Varanasi. The FIR relating to an alleged offence that occurred in 2005‑06 was lodged only in 2017, and the charge sheet was filed in March 2023, resulting in a delay of more than fifteen years. The applicant relied on several Supreme Court decisions holding that a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial, including delays in investigation, warrants quashing of proceedings. The State could not provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay. The High Court, applying the precedents, concluded that the prolonged delay infringed the applicant’s right to a speedy trial and therefore quashed the criminal proceedings against him. The application was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the delay of over fifteen years between the occurrence of the alleged offence, the lodging of the FIR, and the filing of the charge sheet violates the accused's fundamental right to a speedy trial.
Whether the State's failure to explain the delay justifies quashing the criminal proceedings under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 CrPC.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code — s. 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — s. 13(1)(d)

Subjects

speedy trial
right to speedy trial
Section 482 CrPC
quash of charge sheet
delay in investigation
Prevention of Corruption Act
fundamental rights
Article 21

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19248 of 2024

Mukhtar Ahmad
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Pratap Mishra, Gaurav Chauhan
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State-
respondent.

2. This application has been filed by applicant for quashing the charge sheet
dated 9.3.2023 and cognizance order dated 9.2.2024 passed by Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi in Special Trial
No.180 of 2024 (State Vs. Dr. Uday Pratap Singh and others, arising out of
Case Crime No.334 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B
I.P.C. and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station
Chandauli, District Chandauli.

3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case
the first information report was lodged in the year 2017 in respect of an
incident that was occurred in the year 2005-06. Charge sheet has been
submitted on 9.3.2023 and as such after delay of more than 15 years charge
sheet has been submitted.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of this Court
in the case of Arjun Ram Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in
Application U/s 482 No.39496 of 2023 to submit that speedy trial is right of
the accused and if the same is violated, the proceeding would not be tenable.
Paragraph 13 to 18 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:-

"13. Applicants challenged the proceedings pending against them on the sole ground
that FIRs in all the cases have been lodged in the year 2006 but investigation
continued for more than twelve years and charge-sheets in all the cases have been
filed after 2019 and, therefore, their fundamental right of speedy trial has been
A482 No. 19248 of 2024
2

violated. The law is settled that on the ground of violation of fundamental right of
speedy trial, proceeding pending against an accused can be quashed. (See: Abdul
Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak 1992 CrLJ 2717).

14. Further, Seven Judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of P.
Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 also approved the law
laid down by the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay case (supra) and observed that
on the ground of violation of fundamental right of speedy trial, proceeding pending
against an accused can be quashed.

15. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar (supra) held that the right of
speedy trial is a fundamental right provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of
India 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 Apex Court
further held that the right of speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions
and is not confined to any particular category of cases.

16. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L
Chongthu (supra) also held that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy
trial and there is delay in investigation then proceedings pending against an accused
can be quashed however Apex Court further observed that an explanation should be
called from the State in this regard. In the present matter, however explanation was
called from the State but State could not provide any explanation on the delay in
investigation. Further, there is no material on record which can suggests that
applicants were responsible in delay in investigation.

17. Further, however, all the instant matters relate to provisions of Prevention of
Corruption Act but Apex Court in the case of Ramanand Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar
and others AIR 1994 SC 948 quashed the proceedings relate to provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that there is delay of 13 years in granting
sanction and even Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar
2002 (1) SCC 149 also quashed the proceedings pending against the accused in case
relating to Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground of delay in investigation.

18. Further, the Apex Court in its celebrated decision in the case of Hussainara
Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 also observed
that right of speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to
life and liberty."

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that law is now
settled that delay in investigation should also be considered while
considering the fact whether fundamental right of speedy trial of accused has
been violated or not. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court
in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008
A482 No. 19248 of 2024
3

(16) SCC 117. He submits that even recently the Apex Court in the case of
Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu Vs. State of Bihar,
2025 INSC 1339 also observed that where there is delay in conducting the
investigation and prosecution failed to provide any explanation in this regard
then on this ground prosecution pending against the accused can be quashed.

6. In the present case, it is to be seen that investigation has been made for
more than six years in respect of an offence occurred in the year 2005-06.
The first information report was lodged in the year 2017. The applicant has
retired from the post of Pharmacist. The charge sheet has been filed in the
year 2023.

7. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the present case is covered
by the law laid down by this Court in Arjun Ram Vs. State of U.P. and
another (supra) and submits that the offence is of the year 2005-06,
whereas the first information report has been lodged in the year 2017 and the
charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2023.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the criminal proceedings against the applicant in
Special Trial No.180 of 2024 (State Vs. Dr. Uday Pratap Singh and others,
arising out of Case Crime No.334 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467,
468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
Police Station Kotwali, District Chandauli pending in the court of Special
Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi is hereby
quashed against the applicant. The application is allowed.

September 11, 2026
Bhaskar
(Vikram D. Chauhan,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
BHASKAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…