Allahabad High Court
AMIR ANSARIversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- VIVEK KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The petition under Section 528 CrPC is not maintainable and is dismissed.
Summary
The applicant, Amir Ansari, filed a petition under Section 528 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking to quash the order dated 5 March 2021 that framed charges against him in a trial for offences under Sections 376, 354‑D, 506 of the IPC and Section 67 of the IT Act. The petition was filed on 8 February 2026, more than five years after the charge‑framing order, and the respondent State argued that the delay was unexplained and the petition was not maintainable. The High Court examined the record, noting that all six prosecution witnesses had already been examined and that the applicant had failed to justify the extensive delay. The Court held that it could not interfere with the charge‑framing order at this stage and found the petition devoid of merit. Consequently, the application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petition under Section 528 CrPC challenging the charge‑framing order is maintainable given the delay.
- Whether the High Court can interfere with the charge‑framing order at this stage of the proceedings.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 528
- Indian Penal Code — s. 354-D, 376, 506
- Information Technology Act — s. 67
Subjects
- Section 528 CrPC
- quash order
- charge framing
- delay
- laches
- sexual offences
- IT Act
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 6269 of 2026
Amir Ansari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Vivek Kumar Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rajeev Upadhyay
Court No. - 80
HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri
Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned
A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no.1.
2. Present application has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated
5.3.2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (Crime Against
Women), Jaunpur as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 186 of
2020 (State Vs. Amir Ansari), arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2020,
under sections 376, 354-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police
Station-Madiyahun, District- Jaunpur, pending in the court of learned
Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.C.-I, Jaunpur.
3. The impugned order dated 05.03.2021 has been challenged by filing the
present application on 08.02.2026. By the impugned order dated 05.03.2021,
charges have already been framed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that all the
prosecution witnesses have been examined in the trial court, and the
statements of six prosecution witnesses have been appended along with the
present application. The laches have not been properly explained in this
matter, and the present application is not maintainable.
5. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
6. The order framing charge has been challenged by filing the present
application on 08.02.2026. Total six prosecution witnesses have been
NA528 No. 6269 of 2026
2
examined in the trial court. The delay has not been properly explained by the
applicant. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere in the matter.
7. The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is
accordingly dismissed.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
Radhika
Digitally signed by :-
RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…