HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19248 of 2024 Court No. - 55 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State- respondent. 2. This application has been filed by applicant for quashing the charge sheet dated 9.3.2023 and cognizance order dated 9.2.2024 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi in Special Trial No.180 of 2024 (State Vs. Dr. Uday Pratap Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.334 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Chandauli, District Chandauli. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in the present case the first information report was lodged in the year 2017 in respect of an incident that was occurred in the year 2005-06. Charge sheet has been submitted on 9.3.2023 and as such after delay of more than 15 years charge sheet has been submitted. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Arjun Ram Vs. State of U.P. and another passed in Application U/s 482 No.39496 of 2023 to submit that speedy trial is right of the accused and if the same is violated, the proceeding would not be tenable. Paragraph 13 to 18 of the aforesaid judgment is quoted hereunder:- "13. Applicants challenged the proceedings pending against them on the sole ground that FIRs in all the cases have been lodged in the year 2006 but investigation continued for more than twelve years and charge-sheets in all the cases have been filed after 2019 and, therefore, their fundamental right of speedy trial has been Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Brijesh Pratap Mishra, Gaurav Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Mukhtar Ahmad .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) violated. The law is settled that on the ground of violation of fundamental right of speedy trial, proceeding pending against an accused can be quashed. (See: Abdul Rehman Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak 1992 CrLJ 2717). 14. Further, Seven Judges Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of P. Ramachandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka (2002) 4 SCC 578 also approved the law laid down by the Apex Court in Abdul Rehman Antulay case (supra) and observed that on the ground of violation of fundamental right of speedy trial, proceeding pending against an accused can be quashed. 15. Further, the Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar (supra) held that the right of speedy trial is a fundamental right provided under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and this right is applicable not only to the actual proceedings in court but also includes within its sweep the preceding police investigation as well. The Apex Court further held that the right of speedy trial extends equally to all criminal persecutions and is not confined to any particular category of cases. 16. Recently, the Apex Court in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu (supra) also held that if there is violation of fundamental right of speedy trial and there is delay in investigation then proceedings pending against an accused can be quashed however Apex Court further observed that an explanation should be called from the State in this regard. In the present matter, however explanation was called from the State but State could not provide any explanation on the delay in investigation. Further, there is no material on record which can suggests that applicants were responsible in delay in investigation. 17. Further, however, all the instant matters relate to provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act but Apex Court in the case of Ramanand Chaudhary Vs. State of Bihar and others AIR 1994 SC 948 quashed the proceedings relate to provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground that there is delay of 13 years in granting sanction and even Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar 2002 (1) SCC 149 also quashed the proceedings pending against the accused in case relating to Prevention of Corruption Act on the ground of delay in investigation. 18. Further, the Apex Court in its celebrated decision in the case of Hussainara Khatoon and others Vs. Home Secretary State of Bihar (1980) 1 SCC 81 also observed that right of speedy trial is an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty." 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that law is now settled that delay in investigation should also be considered while considering the fact whether fundamental right of speedy trial of accused has been violated or not. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Pankaj Kumar Vs. State of Maharashtra and others, 2008 A482 No. 19248 of 2024 2 (16) SCC 117. He submits that even recently the Apex Court in the case of Robert Lalchungnunga Chongthu @ R L Chongthu Vs. State of Bihar, 2025 INSC 1339 also observed that where there is delay in conducting the investigation and prosecution failed to provide any explanation in this regard then on this ground prosecution pending against the accused can be quashed. 6. In the present case, it is to be seen that investigation has been made for more than six years in respect of an offence occurred in the year 2005-06. The first information report was lodged in the year 2017. The applicant has retired from the post of Pharmacist. The charge sheet has been filed in the year 2023. 7. Learned A.G.A. could not dispute the fact that the present case is covered by the law laid down by this Court in Arjun Ram Vs. State of U.P. and another (supra) and submits that the offence is of the year 2005-06, whereas the first information report has been lodged in the year 2017 and the charge sheet has been submitted in the year 2023. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the criminal proceedings against the applicant in Special Trial No.180 of 2024 (State Vs. Dr. Uday Pratap Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No.334 of 2017, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C. and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station Kotwali, District Chandauli pending in the court of Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act) Special Court No.1, Varanasi is hereby quashed against the applicant. The application is allowed. September 11, 2026 Bhaskar A482 No. 19248 of 2024 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- BHASKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad