Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 86630 (ALL)

SATISH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

NA528/33037/2025 · 2025-09-09

Saurabh Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 33037 of 2025 Court No. - 77 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Rajat Sonkar holding brief of Sri Saurabh Singh, learned counsel for applicant and Sri Suresh Kumar Maurya, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash entire proceeding and summoning order dated 20.08.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun in Case no. 621 of 2019 (State vs. Sewaram and others) as well as charge sheet dated 02.11.2018 arising out of Case Crime no. 408 of 2018 under Section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, PS- Jalaun, District Jalaun. 3. Learned counsel for applicants submitted that present FIR has been lodged at the behest of opposite party no. 2/Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Parishad, Jalaun against the applicants and another co-accused, alleging therein that applicants have encroached over road/pathway which belongs to Nagar Palika Parishad, Jalaun. After conclusion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted whereupon cognizance has been taken up against the applicants vide impugned order dated 20.08.2019. 4. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that for the same cause of action, a civil suit is already pending between the parties before learned court concerned and as such entire Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Prajapati, Saurabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Suresh Kumar Maurya Satish And Another .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) proceeding is liable to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through instant application and submitted that through instant application, cognizance order pertaining to the year 2019 has been challenged without any satisfactory explanation of delay and as such present petition is liable to be rejected. 6. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, it transpires that in the present matter, chargesheet was filed in the year 2018 whereupon cognizance was taken in the year 2019 and now the same has been challenged through the instant application after about six years without explaining the delay and if the Court fails to take into consideration delay and latches while invoking the powers of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS without any reasonable ground, there would be no end to the litigation. A party cannot approach the High Court under Section 528 BNSS at his whim and caprice merely because no period of limitation in filing the petition under the aforesaid provision is provided. A petition under Section 528 BNSS must be filed within a reasonable time and it should not be vitiated by inordinate delay and latches on the part of applicant. 7. Within what time a person should approach the Court under Section 528 BNSS depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Reasonable time generally means any time which is not manifestly unreasonable and which is fairly necessary for approaching the Court. Reasonable time would mean a time required by a prudent litigant to approach the Court in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid position, it is absolutely clear that applicant has approached this Court at a highly belated stage i.e. after about six years of passing the order impugned. The applicant after awaking up from deep slumber, approached this Court without any iota of explanation for the delay as per his choice. Thus, it can by no NA528 No. 33037 of 2025 2 stretch of imagination be stated that the applicant has approached this Court within a reasonable time. The applicant wants this Court to exercise its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court would be reluctant to do. 9. In view thereof, the instant application stands dismissed being highly belated. September 10, 2025 Shaswat NA528 No. 33037 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad