SOURAB ALIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

             APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30283 of 2025

Sourab Ali
                                                                .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                    .....Opposite
                                                                          Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                              :     Ali Bin Saif
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                         :     G.A.

Court No. - 84
                      HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Shri Ali Bin Saif, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned
A.G.A on behalf of the State and perused the material on record.

2. In compliance of order dated 27.01.2026, report of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aligarh has been received, and is kept on record.

3. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2, however, notice issued
to opposite party no. 2 has been served on 27.01.2026 by refusal.

4. This Application under Section 528 Bhartya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita,
2023 ( in short B.N.S.S.), has been filed on behalf of applicant to quash the
entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5321 of 2009 (State Vs. Rizwan and
Another), arising out of Case Crime No.0228 of 2009, under Sections- 392
and 356 IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh and charge-sheet
dated 06.07.2009 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 06.11.2009,
pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh.

5. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party no.
2, Smt. Rihana, lodged an FIR against two unknown persons stating that on
25.6.2009 at 7.30 pm, near Centre Point, her purse was snatched away by
two unknown boys, there were Rs.4,000/- in the purse and the boys were
wearing red and white t-shirts.

6. Upon this information investigation commenced and during investigation
the name of present applicant came into light and after investigation charge-
sheet has been filed under Sections 392 and 356 IPC before the competent
court. The concerned court took cognizance of the offence and summoned
                                                         NA528 No. 30283 of 2025
                                 2


the applicant and other co-accused.

7.It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the charge was framed
against him to which he has denied and the present the case is at the stage of
prosecution evidence. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that
cognizance was taken in the year 2009 and the applicant appeared before the
learned trial court. Not a single witness has been examined before the
learned trial court and due to the above, there is no progress of trial. Learned
Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that more than 15 years have
passed since cognozance was taken and the applicant has been regularly
appearing before the learned trial court and the case is endlessly proceeding
at a snail's pace, without any evidence being recorded.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment of
this Court on Application U/S 482 No.11924 of 2022 (Dr. Meraj Ali and
Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 12.09.2022, wherein it
was found that criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants were
manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive for wreaking vengeance on applicants with a view to spite them due
to private and person grudge. In view of the above, the Court has exercised
its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings.
It was also observed that speedy trial is a right not only of the complainant
but also of accused persons and there was no explanation why the
proceedings reached only upto the stage of charge after a lapse of more than
two decades. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance
upon a judgment in Kailash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, through its PP
in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No.12140 of 2023
decided on 18.07.2024, of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at
Jaipur, wherein after considering the right of accused to speedy trial being a
fundamental right and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the
bail application of accused was allowed. Learned Counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance upon a judgment in Crl MC No.112 of 2020 in
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. (Binod Kumar Sethy Vs. State of Odisha)
decided on 3rd January, 2022, where the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack,
observed that inaction on the part of the investigating agency as also of the
concerned Court is something that cannot be countenanced in law as the
same, if allowed to continue indefinitely, would certainly amount to an
abuse of process of law.
                                                          NA528 No. 30283 of 2025
                                  3


9. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on a judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme court in Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home
Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369, wherein it was declared that
speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty
enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the applicant
has also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Criminal Appeal No.854 of 2011 (Sirajul and Others Vs. The State of
U.P. and Another) decided on 06.07.2015, where it was found that the
proceedings of the case continued for about 32 years and no witness was
examined and thus it was held that right of speedy trial has been violated. It
was also found that the applicant was not responsible for the delay in the
trial and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it was observed that
it is nearly impossible to hold a fair trial of applicant- accused after such a
long lapse of time and it would amount to a sheer waste of public time and
money apart from causing harassment to the applicant-accused, thus the
impugned proceedings against the applicant were quashed.

10. In view of the above, it is argued on behalf of the applicant that speedy
trial is one of the fundamental right of the applicant and looking into the
pace of the trial, there is no chance that the trial will end in the near future,
therefore, pendency of the proceeding against the applicant amount to an
abuse of process of law.

11. Per contra, learned A.G.A on behalf of the State has opposed and stated
that the learned trial court is taking effort to procure witnesses and adequate
directions may be given to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case.
It is further submitted that the offence is grievous one relating to robbery,
hence, the case laws relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in this
case. It is also submitted that the applicant has not filed copy of order-sheets
after 2019, to know what happened in the proceedings before the trial court
after 2019. Therefore, this application is liable to be rejected.

12. Section 528 BNSS, 2023 envisages three circumstances under which the
inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give
effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of
court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite law that the
inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) ought to be exercised to
prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the
                                                       NA528 No. 30283 of 2025
                                4


Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice and the Court possesses wide
discretionary powers. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction
on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The statutory power
has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare
cases. An inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only to prevent abuse of
process of court.

13. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, has held that the following principles would
govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court:

"1. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for
redress of grievances of aggrieved party.

2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court
or otherwise to secure ends of justice.

3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in
any other provision of the code."

14. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp.
(1) SCC 335), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered
in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to
quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the
legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High
Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint:

"1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the
complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against
the accused.

2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials,
if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying
an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the
Code.

3. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any
offence and make out a case against the accused.
                                                         NA528 No. 30283 of 2025
                                 5


4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence
but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by
a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.

5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and
inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever
reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against
the accused.

6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of
the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is
instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or,
where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or
where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for
wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."

15. In view of the above submissions of both the parties, material on record
and above legal position, it is clear that in this case the charge-sheet against
the present applicant has been filed under Sections 392 and 356 IPC. The
case is at the stage of prosecution evidence before the learned trial court. A
report from the concerned court was sought with regard to the steps taken by
the court to procure the attendance of the witnesses and early disposal of the
case and in compliance thereof a report dated 07.02.2026 of Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Aligarh, has ben received, in which it has been stated that the
case is currently pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court No.4, Aligarh and
the attendance of witnesses is being ensured through Senior Superintendent
of Police, Aligarh and sincere steps are also being taken for early disposal of
the case. However, it has not been reported what steps were taken to procure
attendance of witnesses. During the course of argument learned A.G.A. su
bmitted that a report from the concerned trial court be called to get the latest
status of the case, to which learned counsel for applicant vehemently
opposed, and insisted that his application be disposed off finally at this stage
itself.

16. Upon insistence of learned counsel for applicant this application is being
                                                                                              NA528 No. 30283 of 2025
                                                                      6


                                    disposed off at this stage.15. In the present case the applicant is charged with
                                    a very grievous offence of robbery alongwith other co-accused. The perusal
                                    of ordersheets shows that on most of the occasion the applicant has not
                                    attended the court personally. The applicant has not disclosed certain
                                    material facts such as, when the charge was framed and after year 2019 what
                                    proceedings took place before the trial court, to know whether the delay in
                                    disposal of the case was entirely due to the prosecution. The applicant has
                                    opposed to get the current status of the case. It shows that the applicant has
                                    not come with clean hands and has concealed material facts. It is no doubt
                                    that this is a very old case, but looking into the nature of the offence and the
                                    attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that, this is not a fit case to
                                    exercise inherent power of this Court to quash further proceedings of the
                                    case and necessary directions may be issued to the trial court for early
                                    disposal of the case.

                                    17. In view of above, the court concerned is directed to decide the Criminal
                                    Case No. 5321 of 2009 (State Vs. Rizwan and Another), arising out of Case
                                    Crime No.0228 of 2009, under Sections- 392 and 356 IPC, Police Station-
                                    Civil Lines, District- Aligarh expeditiously, preferably within a period of six
                                    months, if there is no other legal impediment, without giving any
                                    unnecessary adjournments to either party, by fixing short dates. The learned
                                    trial court is further directed to take all steps, as provided in law, to procure
                                    the attendance of witnesses.

                                    18. It is further directed that the learned District Judge, Aligarh, shall
                                    monitor the disposal of the case and the trial court is further directed to send
                                    report to the District Judge, Aligarh, fortnightly, about the progress of the
                                    case.

                                    19. With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed of.

                                    20. Let a copy of this order be send to the learned trial Court and District
                                    Judge, Aligarh for information and necessary compliance by Registrar
                                    (Compliance).

                                    February 16, 2026
                                    AdityaG
                                                                                                 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
ADITYA GAUTAM
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad