Allahabad High Court
MANISH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The High Court set aside the order rejecting the extension of time and the charge‑framing order, and granted a 20‑day extension to file the discharge application.
Summary
Manish Kumar filed an application under Section 528 of the BNSS seeking to quash an order dated 23 April 2026 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act) that rejected his request for an extension of time to file a discharge application and simultaneously framed charges in a criminal case. The applicant argued that the order was illegal and arbitrary because no statutory limitation exists for filing a discharge application. The High Court observed that the applicant had needlessly delayed the trial for four years without filing any discharge application, but noted that the law does not prescribe a limitation period for such a filing. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and the charge‑framing order, and granted a fresh 20‑day period for the applicant to file his discharge application, after which the charges may be framed if necessary. The application was partly allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order rejecting the applicant's request for an extension of time to file a discharge application and framing charges is legally valid.
- Whether there is any statutory limitation for filing a discharge application in a criminal trial.
- Whether the High Court can extend time for filing a discharge application despite the applicant's delay.
Legislation cited
- BNSS — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 379, 411, 413, 414, 420, 467, 468, 471
- SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act
Subjects
- discharge application
- extension of time
- charge framing
- Section 528
- High Court
- procedural delay
- SC/ST Act
- criminal procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32207 of 2026
Manish Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dhirendra Singh Rajput
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 order dated
23.4.2026 passed by learned Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Jalaun at Orai in
Session Trial no. 11 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Rajesh and others) arising
out of Case Crime no. 0644 of 2021 under sections 379, 411, 413, 414,
420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, PS- Kotwali Orai, District Jalaun.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that applicant preferred an
application before learned court concerned for seeking time to file
discharge application but the same has been declined vide impugned order
dated 23.4.2026 and on the same date charges have been framed in
Session Trial no. 11 of 2022 (State of U.P. vs. Rajesh and others) by
learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (SC/ST
Act), Jalaun at Orai.
4. Learned counsel for applicant contended that impugned order is illegal
and arbitrary. The reasoning recorded by learned court concerned while
passing impugned order that matter is pending since 2022 but discharge
application has not been preferred, is not sustainable in the eye of law,
since there is no limitation prescribed in the statute to prefer discharge
application and as such impugned order is liable to be quashed and set
aside along with charge framing order.
5. Learned AGA although opposed the prayer sought through instant
NA528 No. 32207 of 2026
2
application but could not dispute the aforesaid arguments raised at the
behest of learned counsel for applicant.
6. Without interfering into the merit of the matter, considering the
statutory rights available with the applicant although the same has not
been exercised within the legitimate period since it has been recorded by
learned court concerned that the file was pending since 7.1.2022 at the
stage of framing of charges but the application has been preferred on
dated 23.4.2026 for seeking some more time for preferring discharge
application and the applicant unnecessarily wasted 4 years of time by way
of not filing any discharge application, although, there are ample reasons
available through which it has been transpired that it is the deliberate
action initiated at the behest of applicant for delaying the trial by way of
not preferring any application for seeking discharge but at the same time
it is not mentioned in the procedure that the discharge has to be preferred
within limitations and as such one more opportunity is hereby extended
in favour of applicant for preferring discharge application within 20 days
from today and the same shall be decided within a week thereafter.
7. Impugned order dated 23.4.2026 passed in Session Trial no. 11 of
2022 through which prayer for extension of time for preferring discharge
application has been rejected as well as order through which charges have
been framed are hereby set aside qua applicant herein.
8. The instant application u/s 528 BNSS stands partly allowed. However,
it is made clear that after expiry of the time as extended above in favour
of applicant as well as the time for disposing the discharge application,
the charges may be framed, if required, immediately thereafter.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
September 8, 2026
Shaswat
Digitally signed by :-
SHASWAT SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…