Allahabad High Court
NABABversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The application under Section 528 BNSS was dismissed as it was filed after an inordinate delay and not within a reasonable time.
Summary
The applicant sought to quash criminal proceedings (Case No. 1925 of 2010) on the ground of mistaken identity, invoking Section 528 of the BNSS. The High Court examined whether the petition, filed after a 16‑year delay, complied with the requirement of filing within a reasonable time. The court emphasized that no limitation period is prescribed, but the petition must not be filed after an inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation. It held that the applicant failed to justify the delay and therefore did not approach the court within a reasonable time. Consequently, the application to quash the proceedings was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether an application under Section 528 BNSS to quash criminal proceedings is maintainable after a 16‑year delay.
- Whether the applicant’s claim of mistaken identity can justify quashing the case despite the delay.
- What constitutes a 'reasonable time' for filing an application under Section 528 BNSS.
Legislation cited
- Bail and Nondisclosure of Statements Act — s. 528
Subjects
- quash criminal proceedings
- section 528
- delay
- reasonable time
- mistaken identity
- high court jurisdiction
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 31952 of 2026
Nabab
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sunil Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire
proceeding of Case no. 1925 of 2010 (State vs. Pawan and another) arising
out of NCR no. 26 of 2010 under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, PS- Chandi
Nagar, District Baghpat pending in court of learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Baghpat.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant has been falsely
implicated in the present case. The entire criminal proceedings initiated
against applicant are vitiated on account of mistaken identity. There is no
material collected during investigation connecting the applicant with the
alleged occurrence and as such entire proceeding is liable to be quashed and
set aside.
4. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through
instant application and submitted that through instant application,
proceedings pertaining to the year 2010 has been challenged without any
satisfactory explanation of delay and as such present petition is liable to be
rejected.
5. A precise query has been raised before learned counsel for applicant that
what is the current stage of trial to which learned counsel for applicant failed
to respond and only submitted that applicant has already been granted bail.
NA528 No. 31952 of 2026
2
6. After hearing the submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties
and perusing the records, it transpires that in the present matter, proceedings
pertaining to the year 2010 has been challenged through the instant
application after about 16 years without explaining the delay and if the Court
fails to take into consideration delay and latches while invoking the powers
of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS without any reasonable ground,
there would be no end to the litigation. A party cannot approach the High
Court under Section 528 BNSS at his whim and caprice merely because no
period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is
provided. A petition under Section 528 BNSS must be filed within a
reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and latches
on the part of applicant.
7. 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.
8. Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid
position, it is absolutely clear that applicant has approached this Court at a
highly belated stage i.e. after about 16 years. The applicant 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 applicant has approached this Court within a reasonable time.
The applicant 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.
9. In view thereof, the instant application stands dismissed being highly
belated.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…