Dr. Daya Ram Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 45292 of 2025

Dr. Daya Ram Vishwakarma

	Versus .	....Applicant(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: Rakesh Kumar Mishra, : G.A.	Vijit Saxena

¶5

Court No. - 73

¶6

HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

¶7

Supplementary affidavit filed by applicant is taken on record.

¶8

The instant matter is squarely covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos.21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others), therefore, without calling any counter affidavit with the consent of both the parties, the instant application is being disposed of.

¶9

Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vijay Kumar, learned AGA-I, for the State.

¶10

The instant application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to quash the charge sheet no.17A of 2019 dated 13.5.2022, cognizance/summoning order dated 10.11.2023 as well as entire proceedings of Special Trial No. 823 of 2023 (State Vs. Kaushal Kumar Ojha and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 57B of 2006, under Sections 409, 420,467,468,471,477A, 120B and 34 IPC and Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station Reoti, District Ballia pending in the court of Additional District and Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No.1, Varanasi.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that however, this is second application filed on behalf of the applicant challenging the charge sheet filed against him and proceeding pending against him in the aforesaid case but first application of the applicant has not been dismissed on

¶12

NA528 No. 45292 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

merit and the same has been dismissed as withdrawn.

¶15

He further submits that however, from the order dated 22.7.2025 passed on the first application moved by applicant which has been annexed at page 26 of the paper book, it reflects that while dismissing the application of the applicant as withdrawn this Court did not give liberty to the applicant to file another application but this does not bar the applicant to file second application as admittedly first application of the applicant has not been decided on merit. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muskan Enterprises and another Vs. State of Punjab and another, 2024 SCC Online SC 4107 .

¶16

He further submits that as far as merit of the present case is concerned, however, as per allegation applicant was Block Development Officer and FIR of the present case was lodged against him and several others with the allegation that accused persons misappropriated public fund relating to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and investigation of the case continued upto the year 2022, i.e., for the last 16 years and thus its violated the fundamental right of speedy trial of the applicant.

¶17

He further submits that law is by far now settled that period of investigation should also be considered while considering the fact whether there is any infringement of fundamental right of speedy trial of the accused or not. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharshtra and others, 2008(16) SCC 117.

¶18

He further submits that there is neither any evidence nor any allegation that due to the applicant investigation continued upto 16 years and, therefore, delay in investigation cannot be attributed to the applicant.

¶19

He further submits that with regard to the similar allegation as many as 51 FIRs were lodged and when four accused persons of two FIRs approached this Court vide Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos. 21588 of 2025 and 21595 of 2025 then this Court after considering the entire facts of the case vide order dated 28.10.2025 quashed the proceedings pending against them on the ground that their fundamental right of speedy trial has

¶20

NA528 No. 45292 of 2025

¶21

3

¶22

been violated as in those cases also FIR was lodged in the year 2006 and charge sheet was filed after 19 years. He next submits that the observation made by this Court in both these cases shall equally applicable in the present matter.

¶23

He further submits that therefore, considering the above facts charge sheet filed against the applicants and proceeding pending against them should be quashed.

¶24

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that FIR of the present case was lodged against the applicant and several others in the year 2006 and charge sheet has been filed in the year 2022, i.e., after 16 years and there is neither any evidence nor any allegation that applicant was responsible for delay in investigation.

¶25

Learned AGA further could not dispute that after considering the fact that investigation of the case continued upto 19 years and delay in investigation was not attributable to the accused persons this Court in Application U/S 528 BNSS Nos.21588 of 2025 (Girish Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others) and 21595 of 2025 (Radhey Shyam Ram Vs. State of U.P. and others) has quashed the proceedings of the applicants of above cases after considering the fact that their fundamental rights of speedy trial have been violated and the observation made by this Court is equally applicable in the present matter too.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

¶27

By way of instant application applicant challenged the charge sheet filed against them and proceedings pending against them on the ground that as investigation of the case continued for 16 years, therefore, his fundamental right of speedy trial has been violated.

¶28

However, this is second application moved by applicant under Section 528 BNSS but it reflects that his first application has been dismissed vide order dated 22.7.2025 passed in Application U/S 528 BNSS No. 25772 of 2025 as withdrawn.

¶29

From the order dated 22.7.2025 it reflects that while dismissing first

¶30

NA528 No. 45292 of 2025

¶31

4

¶32

application of the applicant as withdrawn this Court did not provide any liberty to him to move any further application but considering the observation made by Apex Court in the case of Muskan Enterprises (supra) on which reliance was placed by applicant instant second application is maintainable.

¶33

As far as facts of the present case are concerned, however, applicant was posted as Block Development Officer and as per allegation he along with other co-accused misappropriated the public fund relating to Sampurna Gramin Rojgar Yojna but it reflects that FIR of the present case was lodged in the year 2006 and surprisingly investigation of the case continued upto 2022, i.e., for the last 16 years and charge sheet could only be filed in the year 2022.

¶34

The law is settled that if there is any violation of fundamental right of speedy trial of an accused then proceedings pending against him can be quashed unless the Court is of the view that it is not proper in the interest of justice and if such delay is attributable to him. (See: P Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC578.

¶35

In case at hand, there is neither any allegation nor evidence that due to the applicant delay of 16 years in investigation has been caused therefore, delay of 16 years in investigation cannot be attributable to the applicant.

¶36

Further, considering the fact that merely on the basis of general and omnibus allegation applicant along with others has been made accused, therefore, in view of this Court it cannot be said that in the interest of justice proceedings pending against the applicant on the ground of delay in investigation cannot be quashed.

¶37

22.Further, record also suggests that with regard to the similar allegation, i.e., misappropriation of public fund relating to Sampoorna Gramin Rojgar Yojna as many as 51 FIRs were lodged in the year 2006 and four accused persons of two separate FIRs approached this Court by way of two separate applications moved under Sections 528 BNSS Nos. 21588 of 2025 and 21595 of 2025 on the ground that investigation of the case continued for 16 years and after considering entire facts in detail this Court quashed the proceedings pending against them vide order dated

¶38

NA528 No. 45292 of 2025

¶39

5

¶40

28.10.2025 which has been annexed as annexure-10 to the affidavit filed in support of the instant application.

¶41

From the above order dated 28.10.2025 it reflects that it is a detailed and reasoned order and after discussing the entire facts and law in detail this Court arrived at the conclusion that there was delay of 19 years in concluding the investigation which is not attributable to the above applicants, quashed the proceedings pending against them.

¶42

The observation made by this Court in above two cases is equally applicable in the present matter and there is no reason for this Court to deviate from the observations made in above two cases, therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case discussed above, in considered view of this Court as delay of 16 years in concluding the investigation is not attributable to the applicant and, therefore, proceedings pending against the applicant and charge sheet filed against him are liable to be quashed and are accordingly quashed.

¶43

The instant application stands allowed.

¶44

(Sameer Jain,J.)

¶45

November 18, 2025 SKM

¶46

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVANA KUMAR MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Dr. Daya Ram Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Daya Ram Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Dhyanpal vs State of U.P.

Dinesh Gautam @ Bablu and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Ranu Alias Sulabh Kumar vs State of U.P.

Shri Gopal vs Central Bureau of Investigation and Other

Umesh Kumar M Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another