VISHVANATH PANDEY AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22819 of 2026

Vishvanath Pandey And 5 Others
                                                            .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :      Mithilesh Kumar Ojha
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :      G.A., Rama Shankar Mishra

Court No. - 79
                  HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for applicants, Sri
Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and
learned AGA for State.

2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge
sheet dated 19.10.2016, cognizance order dated 12.1.2017 passed by
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Allahabad as
well as entire proceeding of Case no. 79 of 2017 (State vs. Vishvanath
Pandey) under sections 147, 344, 347, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime
no. 208 of 2026, PS- Kaudhiyara, District Allahabad.

3. At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 raised a
preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant application
by way of submitting that earlier one Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. bearing
no. 11987 of 2019 (Vishwanath Pandey and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and
another) has already been preferred before this Court at the behest of
applicants, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh
vide order dated 4.4.2019 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, over
the objection so raised by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 in
respect of maintainability of same now it is informed by learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2 that charges have already been framed and 3
prosecution witnesses have already been examined and after 2019 i.e.
near about gap of 7 years, now entire proceeding has been put under
challenge wherein charges have already been framed but the same has not
                                                         NA528 No. 22819 of 2026
                                  2


been challenged. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that
since 2019, applicants never availed the liberty extended vide order dated
4.4.2019 and now after gap of about 7 years the second petition has been
preferred which does not comes under the ambit of reasonable time, hence
instant petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. When confronted with the aforesaid objection raised by learned counsel
for opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for applicants could not
overcome the same.

5. After hearing submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties
and perusing the records, this Court finds that within what time a person
should approach the Court under Section 528 BNSS depends upon the facts
and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time
which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for
approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a
prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given facts and circumstances of
the case.

6. Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid
position, it is absolutely clear that applicants after obtaining liberty to file
fresh petition in the year 2019 have approached this Court second time at a
highly belated stage i.e. after about 7 years of passing the order dated
4.4.2019 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The applicants after awaking
up from deep slumber, approached this Court without any iota of explanation
for the delay as per his choice. Thus, it can by no stretch of imagination be
stated that the applicants have approached this Court within a reasonable
time. The applicants wants this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under
Section 528 BNSS, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this
Court would be reluctant to do.

7. In view thereof, the instant application stands dismissed. Applicants are
directed to cooperate with learned trial court for expedite disposal of the
proceedings pending before it.

8. Learned counsel for applicants again sought liberty to file fresh but
unfortunately the liberty extended in the year 2019 by co-ordinate Bench
of this Court itself has not been properly availed at the behest of
                                                                                        NA528 No. 22819 of 2026
                                                                  3


                                    applicants and as such today there is hardly any ground available for
                                    extension of liberty for filing fresh application under Section 528 BNSS,
                                    for challenging the charges framed against the applicants since in
                                    pursuance to the same 3 prosecution witnesses have already been
                                    examined.



                                                                                     (Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 21, 2026
                                    Shaswat




Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad