HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 22819 of 2026 Court No. - 79 HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J. 1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar Ojha, learned counsel for applicants, Sri Rama Shankar Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and learned AGA for State. 2. Present application has been preferred with prayer to quash charge sheet dated 19.10.2016, cognizance order dated 12.1.2017 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Allahabad as well as entire proceeding of Case no. 79 of 2017 (State vs. Vishvanath Pandey) under sections 147, 344, 347, 506 IPC, arising out of Case Crime no. 208 of 2026, PS- Kaudhiyara, District Allahabad. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the instant application by way of submitting that earlier one Application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. bearing no. 11987 of 2019 (Vishwanath Pandey and 6 others vs. State of U.P. and another) has already been preferred before this Court at the behest of applicants, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh vide order dated 4.4.2019 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court, over the objection so raised by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 in respect of maintainability of same now it is informed by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that charges have already been framed and 3 prosecution witnesses have already been examined and after 2019 i.e. near about gap of 7 years, now entire proceeding has been put under challenge wherein charges have already been framed but the same has not Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Mithilesh Kumar Ojha Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rama Shankar Mishra Vishvanath Pandey And 5 Others .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) been challenged. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 contended that since 2019, applicants never availed the liberty extended vide order dated 4.4.2019 and now after gap of about 7 years the second petition has been preferred which does not comes under the ambit of reasonable time, hence instant petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. When confronted with the aforesaid objection raised by learned counsel for opposite party no. 2, learned counsel for applicants could not overcome the same. 5. After hearing submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that 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. 6. Analyzing the facts of the instant case in the backdrop of aforesaid position, it is absolutely clear that applicants after obtaining liberty to file fresh petition in the year 2019 have approached this Court second time at a highly belated stage i.e. after about 7 years of passing the order dated 4.4.2019 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The applicants 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 stretch of imagination be stated that the applicants have approached this Court within a reasonable time. The applicants 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. 7. In view thereof, the instant application stands dismissed. Applicants are directed to cooperate with learned trial court for expedite disposal of the proceedings pending before it. 8. Learned counsel for applicants again sought liberty to file fresh but unfortunately the liberty extended in the year 2019 by co-ordinate Bench of this Court itself has not been properly availed at the behest of NA528 No. 22819 of 2026 2 applicants and as such today there is hardly any ground available for extension of liberty for filing fresh application under Section 528 BNSS, for challenging the charges framed against the applicants since in pursuance to the same 3 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. September 21, 2026 Shaswat NA528 No. 22819 of 2026 3 (Saurabh Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad