Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 654 of 2025 Applicant :- Ganesh Prajapati Alias Ramshiv And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Yadav,Sandeep Kumar Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

1. Heard Mr. Neeraj Srivastava, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Sandeep Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicants and the learned A.G.A. for State.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicants- Ganesh Prajapati Alias Ramshiv And 2 Others, who are charge sheeted accused, have approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-

"It prayed is that graciously therefore, this be most Hon'ble pleas id to respectfully court allow may this application and quash the charge sheet dated 07.06.2024, cognizance order dated 14.08.2024 as well. as entire proceedings of Case No. 5896 of 2024, State Versus Ganesh Prajapati and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, Station 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Turkpatti, District Kushinagar pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kasya, Kushinagar. It is further prayed stay the further proceedings of Case No. 5896 of 2024, State Versus Ganesh Prajapati and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 415 of 2023, under Sections 406, 419, 420, 468, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Turkpatti, District Kushinagar pending in the court of learned Civil Judge (S.D.)/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, pendency otherwise, Kasya, Kushinagar the during instant application applicants shall suffer of the irreparable loss and injury and/or to pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for applicants submits that in the day, date and time of occurrence column in the FIR, specific details have not been mentioned. As such, the FIR is highly belated. He then invited the attention of court to the body of the FIR and on basis thereof, he submits that occurrence giving rise to present criminal proceedings are alleged to have occurred in the years 2000 and thereafter, in the year 2007. Taking the year 2000 as the date of commencement of the criminality alleged to have been committed by applicant, the FIR giving rise to present criminal proceedings is belated only by 23 years. He therefore, submits that the FIR is highly belated. According to the learned counsel for applicants after aforementioned FIR was lodged, the statement of the first informant was recorded under Sections 161 Cr.P.C., copy of which is on record at page 33 of the paper book. However, no explanation with regard to the delay in lodging the FIR has come forward. Referrring to the judgments of Supreme Court in (i). P. Ramchandra Rao Vs. State of Karnataka, (2002) 4 SCC 578, (ii). P. Rajagopal and others Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2019 SC 2866 (paragraph 8), (iii). Hasmukhlal D. Vora and Another Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, 2022 SCC OnLine 1732 and (iv). Sekaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, (2024) 2 SCC 176 (v) Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur @ Banti Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others 2024 SCC Online SC 938, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicants that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has clearly observed that the prosecution of accused cannot be sustained on the basis of delayed FIR. He, therefore, submits that since the delay in lodging the FIR remains unexplained, the criminal prosecution of applicant cannot be sustained. Much emphasis was laid upon paragraph 5 of the judgement of Supreme Court in Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur (paragraph 5) (supra), wherein the Apex Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against the accused therein on the ground that there was an unexplained delay of 39 days in lodging the FIR. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicants submits that present application is liable to be al