Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86344 Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42576 of 2024 Applicant :- Satya Veer Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Singh,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J. 1. Heard Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri R.B. Choudhary, learned A.G.A. for the State-O.P. no.1 and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant praying for quashing summoning order dated 01.08.2009 passed by Judicial Magistrate, Etah in Complaint Case No.2321 of 2012 (Brijkishore vs. Satyaveer and another) u/s 147, 448, 427, 504 IPC, Police Station-Sahawar, District-Etah or to stay the further proceedings of the aforesaid case during pendency of this application. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that O.P. no.2 filed an application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. on 20.01.1999 against the applicant and others, which was treated as an FIR vide order dated 02.02.1999 and after investigation, final report was submitted on 04.02.1999. Against which, O.P. no.2 filed a protest petition, which was rejected vide order dated 14.05.1999 and the final report was accepted. He submitted that against rejection of protest petition, O.P. no.2 filed a criminal revision wherein vide order dated 02.08.2001, revisional court has passed order for further investigation. Thereafter, on 14.11.2003 I.O. has again submitted final report. Being aggrieved, O.P. no.2 again preferred a protest petition on 17.02.2006, which was treated as complaint case on 27.11.2006 and after adducing evidence, summoning order was passed on 01.08.2009, which has been assailed in this application. He submitted that the applicant, who was a police officer had nothing to do with the alleged offence and he was enlarged on bail in the year 2015. He next submitted that during pendency of the trial, applicant retired from service. He further submitted that the trial against the applicant should not have proceeded without obtaining sanction under section 197 Cr.P.C. as he was a public servant. 4. During course of argument, a question was put to learned counsel for the applicant to explain such a long delay in challenging the summoning order which was passed way back on 01.08.2009, which is after almost 16 years, to which no suitable reply could be given by him. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the application and contended that the Court below has rightly summoned the applicants and no interference is required by this Court in the impugned order as well as the on going proceedings. 6. Apparently, the case could not have been proceeded against the applicant without obtaining sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. as he was a public servant and was performing his duty. However, this application is highly belated one, wherein summoning order passed on 01.08.2009 has been challenged after lapse of more than 16 years and that too, without any suitable and plausible explanation. In my view, the present application is dismissed on the ground of delay. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 Manish Himwan Digitally signed by :- MANISH HIMWAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad