HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30283 of 2025 Court No. - 84 HON'BLE SANJIV KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Ali Bin Saif, learned Counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A on behalf of the State and perused the material on record. 2. In compliance of order dated 27.01.2026, report of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh has been received, and is kept on record. 3. None appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 2, however, notice issued to opposite party no. 2 has been served on 27.01.2026 by refusal. 4. This Application under Section 528 Bhartya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ( in short B.N.S.S.), has been filed on behalf of applicant to quash the entire proceeding of Criminal Case No. 5321 of 2009 (State Vs. Rizwan and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.0228 of 2009, under Sections- 392 and 356 IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh and charge-sheet dated 06.07.2009 as well as cognizance/ summoning order dated 06.11.2009, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh. 5. Brief facts giving rise to the present application are that opposite party no. 2, Smt. Rihana, lodged an FIR against two unknown persons stating that on 25.6.2009 at 7.30 pm, near Centre Point, her purse was snatched away by two unknown boys, there were Rs.4,000/- in the purse and the boys were wearing red and white t-shirts. 6. Upon this information investigation commenced and during investigation the name of present applicant came into light and after investigation charge- sheet has been filed under Sections 392 and 356 IPC before the competent court. The concerned court took cognizance of the offence and summoned Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ali Bin Saif Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sourab Ali .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the applicant and other co-accused. 7.It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that the charge was framed against him to which he has denied and the present the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. It is further submitted on behalf of the applicant that cognizance was taken in the year 2009 and the applicant appeared before the learned trial court. Not a single witness has been examined before the learned trial court and due to the above, there is no progress of trial. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also submitted that more than 15 years have passed since cognozance was taken and the applicant has been regularly appearing before the learned trial court and the case is endlessly proceeding at a snail's pace, without any evidence being recorded. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon judgment of this Court on Application U/S 482 No.11924 of 2022 (Dr. Meraj Ali and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another) decided on 12.09.2022, wherein it was found that criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants were manifestly attended with mala fide and maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on applicants with a view to spite them due to private and person grudge. In view of the above, the Court has exercised its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and quashed the criminal proceedings. It was also observed that speedy trial is a right not only of the complainant but also of accused persons and there was no explanation why the proceedings reached only upto the stage of charge after a lapse of more than two decades. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon a judgment in Kailash Chand Vs. State of Rajasthan, through its PP in S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous IInd Bail Application No.12140 of 2023 decided on 18.07.2024, of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, wherein after considering the right of accused to speedy trial being a fundamental right and in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the bail application of accused was allowed. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon a judgment in Crl MC No.112 of 2020 in Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. (Binod Kumar Sethy Vs. State of Odisha) decided on 3rd January, 2022, where the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, observed that inaction on the part of the investigating agency as also of the concerned Court is something that cannot be countenanced in law as the same, if allowed to continue indefinitely, would certainly amount to an abuse of process of law. NA528 No. 30283 of 2025 2 9. Learned Counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme court in Hussainara Khatoon and Others Vs. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, AIR 1979 SC 1369, wherein it was declared that speedy trial is an integral part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on another judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.854 of 2011 (Sirajul and Others Vs. The State of U.P. and Another) decided on 06.07.2015, where it was found that the proceedings of the case continued for about 32 years and no witness was examined and thus it was held that right of speedy trial has been violated. It was also found that the applicant was not responsible for the delay in the trial and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, it was observed that it is nearly impossible to hold a fair trial of applicant- accused after such a long lapse of time and it would amount to a sheer waste of public time and money apart from causing harassment to the applicant-accused, thus the impugned proceedings against the applicant were quashed. 10. In view of the above, it is argued on behalf of the applicant that speedy trial is one of the fundamental right of the applicant and looking into the pace of the trial, there is no chance that the trial will end in the near future, therefore, pendency of the proceeding against the applicant amount to an abuse of process of law. 11. Per contra, learned A.G.A on behalf of the State has opposed and stated that the learned trial court is taking effort to procure witnesses and adequate directions may be given to the trial court for expeditious disposal of the case. It is further submitted that the offence is grievous one relating to robbery, hence, the case laws relied upon by the applicant are not applicable in this case. It is also submitted that the applicant has not filed copy of order-sheets after 2019, to know what happened in the proceedings before the trial court after 2019. Therefore, this application is liable to be rejected. 12. Section 528 BNSS, 2023 envisages three circumstances under which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the High Court, namely, (i) to give effect to an order under the Code; (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice. It is trite law that the inherent power of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS (corresponding Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure,1973) ought to be exercised to prevent miscarriage of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the NA528 No. 30283 of 2025 3 Court or to otherwise secure the ends of justice and the Court possesses wide discretionary powers. Inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the High Court to act according to whim or caprice. The statutory power has to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and in the rarest of rare cases. An inherent jurisdiction can be invoked only to prevent abuse of process of court. 13. The Supreme Court in the case of Madhu Limaye Vs State of Maharashtra, AIR 1978 SC 47, has held that the following principles would govern the exercise of inherent jurisdiction of the High Court: "1. Power is not to be resorted to, if there is specific provision in code for redress of grievances of aggrieved party. 2. It should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. 3. It should not be exercised against the express bar of the law engrafted in any other provision of the code." 14. In the landmark case State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335), a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court of India considered in detail, the provisions of section 482 and the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings or FIR. The Supreme Court summarized the legal position by laying the following guidelines to be followed by High Courts in exercise of their inherent powers to quash a criminal complaint: "1. Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. 2. Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. 3. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. NA528 No. 30283 of 2025 4 4. Where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. 5. Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which, no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. 6. Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or, where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. 7. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 15. In view of the above submissions of both the parties, material on record and above legal position, it is clear that in this case the charge-sheet against the present applicant has been filed under Sections 392 and 356 IPC. The case is at the stage of prosecution evidence before the learned trial court. A report from the concerned court was sought with regard to the steps taken by the court to procure the attendance of the witnesses and early disposal of the case and in compliance thereof a report dated 07.02.2026 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Aligarh, has ben received, in which it has been stated that the case is currently pending in the Court of A.C.J.M. Court No.4, Aligarh and the attendance of witnesses is being ensured through Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh and sincere steps are also being taken for early disposal of the case. However, it has not been reported what steps were taken to procure attendance of witnesses. During the course of argument learned A.G.A. su bmitted that a report from the concerned trial court be called to get the latest status of the case, to which learned counsel for applicant vehemently opposed, and insisted that his application be disposed off finally at this stage itself. 16. Upon insistence of learned counsel for applicant this application is being NA528 No. 30283 of 2025 5 disposed off at this stage.15. In the present case the applicant is charged with a very grievous offence of robbery alongwith other co-accused. The perusal of ordersheets shows that on most of the occasion the applicant has not attended the court personally. The applicant has not disclosed certain material facts such as, when the charge was framed and after year 2019 what proceedings took place before the trial court, to know whether the delay in disposal of the case was entirely due to the prosecution. The applicant has opposed to get the current status of the case. It shows that the applicant has not come with clean hands and has concealed material facts. It is no doubt that this is a very old case, but looking into the nature of the offence and the attending circumstances, this Court is of the view that, this is not a fit case to exercise inherent power of this Court to quash further proceedings of the case and necessary directions may be issued to the trial court for early disposal of the case. 17. In view of above, the court concerned is directed to decide the Criminal Case No. 5321 of 2009 (State Vs. Rizwan and Another), arising out of Case Crime No.0228 of 2009, under Sections- 392 and 356 IPC, Police Station- Civil Lines, District- Aligarh expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months, if there is no other legal impediment, without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either party, by fixing short dates. The learned trial court is further directed to take all steps, as provided in law, to procure the attendance of witnesses. 18. It is further directed that the learned District Judge, Aligarh, shall monitor the disposal of the case and the trial court is further directed to send report to the District Judge, Aligarh, fortnightly, about the progress of the case. 19. With the aforesaid directions this application is finally disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this order be send to the learned trial Court and District Judge, Aligarh for information and necessary compliance by Registrar (Compliance). February 16, 2026 AdityaG NA528 No. 30283 of 2025 6 (Sanjiv Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad