HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9033 of 2025 Court No. - 14 HON'BLE RAJEEV SINGH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to correct the date of the charge sheet in the prayer clause of the application, forthwith. 3. This application has been filed for quashing the charge sheet dated 23.08.2014 as well as summoning order dated 16.09.2014 passed in Criminal Case No. 1615 of 2014 (re-arranged as Criminal Case No. 84 of 2019, arising out of NCR No. 14 of 2014, under Sections 323, 504 I.P.C., P.S. Kurwar, District Sultanpur as well as its entire proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the offence is of the year 2014 and the trial of the case in question is pending since 2019, but till today, not even a single witness has been placed before the trial court. It is further submitted that the alleged offences are non-cognizable, but the applicant being the accused, is being victimized. It is vehemently submitted that the impugned proceedings are liable to be quashed merely on the basis of delay in trial. Relying on the decision of this Court in the case of Madan Mohan Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (Application u/s 482 No. Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Karuna Shankar Mishra, Uma Kant Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Sachchidanand Mishra @ Lallu Mishra @ Sandeep .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) 23675 of 2022), learned counsel for the applicant prays for indulgence of this Court. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposes the prayer of the applicant and submits that private respondent, being a witness, is appearing before the trial court, but he is not being examined. In support of his submission, attention of the Court has been drawn towards page 60 of the application, i.e., order sheet dated 29.08.2025, which reveals that complainant has signed the order sheet being a witness. It is, thus, submitted that the witness is continuously appearing before the court concerned, but he is not being examined, therefore, it cannot be said that witnesses are not appearing before the trial court. It is, thus, submitted that the application is liable to be dismissed. 6. Considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. and going through the contents of the application, F.I.R., order sheet of the case in question pending before the trial court as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the order sheet that complainant/private respondent is continuously appearing before the trial court, being a witness, but he is not being examined. 7. In such circumstances, the application stands disposed of with the direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. November 20, 2025 VKS A482 No. 9033 of 2025 2 (Rajeev Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench