HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30927 of 2025 Court No. - 79 (SL No.22) HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J. 1. Vakalatnama has been filed by Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, on behalf of the opposite party no.2, in the Registry yesterday. 2. Heard Sri R.B. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sandeep Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Ms. Harshita Rani, learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed seeking quashing of the Criminal Case No. 37 of 2012 (State vs. Ramesh Pal and Others), arising out of Case Crime No. 645 of 2008 under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Ghatampur, District- Kanpur Dehat, pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate- Ghatampur, Kanpur Dehat. 4. Learned counsel of the applicants submits that the applicants herein are facing the trial in the instant case since 2009, and after a gap of sixteen years, only three witnesses have been examined out of total seven witnesses in the instant case. Due to the long pendency of the trial, the applicants are suffering irretrievably. Thus, learned counsel for the applicants seeks quashing of the entire proceedings of the instant case against the applicants. In the alternative, learned counsel for the applicants pray that a direction be issued to the trial court concerned to Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : R.B. Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Jagram And 4 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) conclude the trial at the earliest, in a time-bound manner. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. for opposite party no.2 states that her statement was recorded long back, and due to the non-cooperation of the accused persons, the trial is pending and could not be concluded. 6. Learned A.G.A. for the State submits that since the statements of prosecution witnesses nos.1, 2, and 3 have already been recorded, who are the main witnesses in the instant case, some formal witnesses are required to be examined in the instant case. 7. At this stage, learned counsel for the applicants submits that he is ready to give an undertaking on behalf of the applicants that they will cooperate in the trial and not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the instant case, so that the trial can be concluded at the earliest. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and considering the pendency of the trial since 2009, specifically when the main witnesses have already been examined, this Court does not find any good reason to quash the proceedings at this stage. However, the instant application is disposed of with direction to the trial court concerned to decide the Complaint Case No. 37 of 2012 (State vs. Ramesh Pal and Others), as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 9. In the proceedings, the learned trial court shall take all coercive steps against the witnesses who fail to appear before the trial court in response to the processes issued by the court as well as against the applicants if they try to delay the trial by seeking unnecessary adjournment. October 9, 2025 Shubham Arya NA528 No. 30927 of 2025 2 (Anish Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad