High Court dismissed an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a charge sheet filed 21 years earlier on grounds of laches inordinate delay without satisfactory explanation, holding it would disrupt trial proceedings.
Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. dismissed on the ground of laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196059
Court No. - 88
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 28091 of 2023
Applicant :- Om Pakash Mishra And 3 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ganesh Mani,Som Nath Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Mr. Ajeet Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-Ist assisted by Ms. Pratiksha Rai, learned Brief Holder for the State of U.P. and perused the record.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants with a prayer to quash the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2001 and proceedings of case no. 80 of 2002 (State vs. Om Prakash Mishra and others) arising out of case crime no. 575 of 2001, under Sections 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and Sections 145 Railway Act, Police Station Cantt G.R.P., District Varanasi pending in the court of A.C.J.M/N.R., Varanasi.
The brief facts of the case which are required to be stated are that in this case, a first information report was lodged on 01.07.2001 with regard to an incident which took place on 29.06.2001 under Sections 323, 504 and 506 I.P.C. in which after culmination of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted on 12.11.2001, on which the learned Magistrate took cognizance on 11.01.2002 and summoned the applicants to face trial but the applicants did not appear before the trial court.
At the outset, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State has raised a preliminary objection that the instant application has been preferred by the applicants after inordinate delay of 21 years from the date of cognizance, therefore, same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches.
In reply to the above preliminary objection, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the instant application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. has been preferred on 26.07.2023 challenging the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2001, after delay of 21 years. On putting query with regard to inordinate delay in filing the instant application, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants were not aware about the charge-sheet, therefore, they could not appear before the trial court.
In view of the above, before going into the merit of the case, first question which arises for consideration is as to whether the application u/S 482 Cr.P.C. is barred on account of laches and inordinate delay.
Section 482 Cr.PC starts with a non-obstante clause and that being unfettered by any provision of law contained in Cr.P.C., the High Court is conferred with the powers to pass orders to prevent the abuse of process of law or to secure the ends of justice. There is no dispute about the fact that no period of limitation has been prescribed by the Limitation Act within which an application under Section 482 Cr.PC ought to be filed, therefore the provisions of the Limitation Act is not applicable, but in appropriate cases laches are also treated as a important factor in justice delivery system. In this regard, it would be useful to refer to following judgments of other High Courts which have dealt with similar question.
In the matter of Bata & Others versus Anama Behera, 1990 Crl.LJ 1110 , the learned single Judge of the Orissa High Court observed as under :-
"Though for filing an application under section 482 there is no limitation, the application should be filed within a reasonable time, so that the progress of the case is not disturbed at a belated stage. A revision petition challenging an order can be filed within 90 days from the date of the order similarly a period of 90 days which is at par with a revision petition should be treated as reasonable time for filing an application under section 482 and if it is filed beyond the period of 90 days the applicants would have to explain the cause of the delay."
Similarly in the matter of Gopal Chauhan versus
Smt. Satya & Anr., 1979 Crl.LJ 446 , it was observed that a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC and Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed after expiry of 3 years from the date of summoning ought not to be entertained when the case is fixed for the stage of evidence and that too, when the petitioner has approached the Revisional Court.
I agree with the observation made by the Orissa High Court that if a revision against an order of summoning of accused could be filed within a period of 90 days then ordinarily a period of 90 days can also be said to be reasonable in normal circumstances for preferring an application under Section 482 Cr.PC before the High Court.
Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for the applicants and learned A.G.A. for the State and examined the matter and under the facts of the case and for the reasons mentioned above, I am of the considered opinion that the present application is highly belated and there is inordinately delayed of almost 21 years in challenging the charge-sheet dated 12.11.2001 by invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.PC of the High Court, for which no convincing explanation has been given in the application.
In view of the above, I do not agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the applicants and find force in the preliminary objection raised by learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as noted above. This Court is also of the view that if the same is permitted to be done, then as a consequence of which no trial before the trial court would be either able to proceed or get concluded.
The instant application is totally misconceived and the same is accordingly dismissed on the ground of laches.
OfÏce is directed to send a copy of this order to the opposite party no. 2 immediately for necessary information.
Order Date :- 11.10.2023/Saurabh
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. filed after an inordinate delay of 21 years is barred by laches given no limitation applies.
Whether the inordinate delay without convincing explanation bars the High Court from exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Pakash Mishra And 3 Others
State of U.P.
Sanjay Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
