HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1258 of 2026 Court No. - 82 HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nijinjay Pandey, Advocate and Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite party. 2 and Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 05.12.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Etah in S.T. No. 469 of 2013 arising out of Case Crime No. 299 of 2009. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that this Court, vide order dated 21.12.2022, had granted interim protection to the applicant. It is contended that the learned trial court, without properly appreciating the said order, proceeded with the matter and fixed the case on the same day post-lunch session for arguments on behalf of the prosecution. It is thus argued that the impugned order has been passed in disregard of the order of this Court and is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer and submitted that the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court did not stay the proceedings of the trial, but only granted protection from coercive measures. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has acted within its jurisdiction in proceeding with the trial. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, this Court finds that the controversy revolves around the interpretation of the interim order Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashok Kumar Singh, Pratibha Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s): G.A., Nitinjay Pandey, Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi Rajeev Kumar And 3 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) dated 21.12.2022 passed by this Court. 6. A perusal of the said order indicates that this Court had granted protection to the applicant from coercive action; however, there is no specific direction staying further proceedings of the trial. It is well settled that unless there is a clear and specific order staying the proceedings of the trial, the trial court is not precluded from proceeding with the matter in accordance with law. Grant of protection from coercive action cannot be construed as a stay of trial proceedings. 7. In the present case, the learned trial court, having not been restrained by any specific order of stay, has rightly proceeded with the matter and fixed the case for arguments. No illegality or jurisdictional error is found in the impugned order. 8. The contention of the applicant that the trial court has acted in violation of the order of this Court is, therefore, misconceived and devoid of merit. 9. In view of the above, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of powers under Section 528 BNSS. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the instant application is hereby dismissed. February 18, 2026 Israr NA528 No. 1258 of 2026 2 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) Digitally signed by :- ISRAR AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad