The Supreme Court's decision in Asian Resurfacing establishes the binding nature of its judgment on trial and superior courts, emphasizing the need for a speaking order to extend a stay beyond six months.

Suneet Kumar, J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the opposite party.

2. The instant contempt petition has been filed on the allegation of wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 12 November 2009 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 16108 of 2009 (Shri Niwas Daga Versus State of U.P. and another). The order reads thus:

"Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Applicant is directed to serve respondent no 2 through RPAD within a week from today. Respondent no. 2 as well as learned A.G.A. may file counter affidavit within three weeks.

List this application in the second week of may, 2010.

Till the next date of listing, further proceedings of the Case No. 40 of 2009 , under Sections 419, 420 I.P.C., P.S. Marwadeeh, District Varanasi shall remain stayed against the applicant."

3. The facts, briefly stated, is that an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant and two other persons on 23 December 2017. The allegation against the applicant was that an agreement to sale was executed by him in collusion with one of the accused, thereby, he tried to dispose of the property of the complainant. Upon investigation, charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Varanasi. Learned Magistrate took cognizance on the charge sheet on 12 January 2009. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was instituted assailing the cognizance/summoning order and the charge sheet, wherein, the order dated 12 November 2009 came to be passed by this Court.

4. It is urged that the contesting opposite party/complainant has put in appearance and filed stay vacation application some times in 2010. The matter is still pending decision.

5. It is informed by learned counsel for the opposite party that in the pending petition the applicant preferred several listing applications and finally the matter was listed on 28 January 2015, however, the interim order was not extended by the Court. In the meantime, pursuant to the decision of the Supreme Court rendered in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. and another versus Central Bureau of Investigation, 2018 SCC Online (SC) 310, the Registry of this Court vide Circular dated 26.04.2018, addressed to all judicial officers subordinate to the High Court, directed them to follow the mandate of the decision scrupulously. The Circular reads thus:

"To,

All the Judicial Officers,

Subordinate to High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

C.L. No. 12 / Admin. 'G-II' Dated: Allahabad 26.04.2018

Sub : Order dated 28.03.2018 of Hon'ble the Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal Nos 1375-1376 of 2013 titled Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs Central Bureau of Investigation.

Madam/Sir,

While hearing the above-mentioned Criminal Appeals, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has directed that in all cases pending before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings is ordered, stay will automatically lapse after six months from the date of such order unless extended by a speaking order on the parameters fixed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide instant judgment. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.

I am, therefore, directed by Hon'ble Court to enclose herewith a pdf copy of above-mentioned judgment along with the instant circular letter with the request to go through the judgment carefully and follow the mandate thereof scrupulously."

6. The Judicial Magistrate vide order dated 12 December 2018 proceeded with the trial by issuing Non Bailable Warrant (NBW) for the reason that more than six months had lapsed but the applicant had not filed any order of this Court extending the stay order by a speaking order in terms of Asian Resurfacing. T