Allahabad High Court
AJAY KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- SAURABH SRIVASTAVA
Holding
The court held that the delay was attributable to the applicant's avoidance of personal appearance, and therefore the quash petition was dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Ajay Kumar, filed an application under Section 528 of the CrPC seeking to quash the cognizance and summoning order dated 28‑05‑2014 in a case under Section 354(D) IPC, alleging a 12‑year delay violating his right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The applicant contended that the prolonged trial was unreasonable, unfair, and unjust, and therefore a fundamental right had been infringed. The court observed that after the pandemic the applicant repeatedly obtained exemptions from personal appearance, effectively avoiding the trial, and that the delay could not be attributed to the State. Consequently, the court directed the applicant to cooperate with the trial and ordered the trial court not to entertain further exemption applications except on unavoidable grounds, while urging an expedited trial. The application was consequently disposed of without granting the quash.
Issues considered
- Whether a 12‑year delay in a criminal trial infringes the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21, warranting quash of the cognizance order.
- Whether the applicant's own avoidance of personal appearance defeats the claim of violation of the right to speedy trial.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Constitution of India — s. Article 21
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354(D)
Subjects
- right to speedy trial
- Article 21
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash petition
- delay in criminal trial
- personal appearance exemption
- expedited trial
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39733 of 2026
Ajay Kumar
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Adwait Prakash Ojha, Ashutosh Mani
Tiwari, Manish Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 79
HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for applicant and learned AGA.
2. Present application has been preferred with the prayer to quash
cognizance/summoning order dated 28.05.2014 passed by learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad over chargesheet dated 30.03.2014
submitted in Case No.19571 of 2014 (State Vs. Ajay Kumar), arising out of
Case Crime no. 399 of 2014, under Section 354(D) IPC, P.S.- Sahibabad,
District Ghaziabad, pending in the court of learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate-V, Ghaziabad.
3. Learned counsel for applicant submitted that he is challenging the
impugned order on the sole ground that present case is pending for last about
12 years although FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2014 and
charge-sheet was submitted in the year 2014 and cognizance was also taken
in the year 2014 and thereafter charges were framed on dated 14.01.2019.
Learned counsel for applicant further submitted that right of speedy trial is a
fundamental right of an accused as well as of complainant guaranteed under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and for last about 12 years, applicant
is facing agony of criminal trial without any fault and proceeding of the
present matter is pending for last about 12 years. Learned counsel for
applicant next submitted that according to Article 21 of the Constitution of
India, no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except
according to procedure established by law and such procedure should be
reasonable, fair and just and inordinate delay of 12 years in completion of
trial cannot be said to be reasonable, fair and just. Learned counsel for
applicant further contended that right of speedy trial is, therefore, a
fundamental right which has been infringed in the present case.
NA528 No. 39733 of 2026
2
4. By bare perusal of the entire material available on record alongwith
ordersheet, it is evident that after Pandemic, there are continuous
applications for seeking exemption from personal appearance preferred at
the behest of applicant and the same have also been allowed from
27.06.2022 to till date, meaning thereby, applicant himself is avoiding his
presence before learned trial court concerned and as such, the argument
raised by learned counsel for applicant is hereby rejected.
5. Applicant is hereby directed to cooperate with trial and at the same time,
learned trial court concerned is directed not to accept the exemption
application except preferred on specific ground mentioning unavoidable
circumstance. This Court also notes that the present matter pertains under the
category of pending cases from more than ten years, the trial of the same
may be expedited as expeditiously as possible.
6. With the above observations, the instant application is disposed of.
September 18, 2026
Vivek Kr.
(Saurabh Srivastava,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VIVEK KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…