HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Ramdular Singh …..Applicant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and another …..Opposite Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Anurag Vajpeyi, Praveen Kumar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Arvind Kumar Rai, G.A., Prashant Sharma, Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, Vishesh Kumar Singh, Yogesh Singh Court No. - 75 A.F.R.

Reserved on: 24.03.2026 Delivered on: 08.04.2026 HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Praveen Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yogesh Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Ajay Singh, learned A.G.A.-I for State and perused the records.

2. The present application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant- Ramdular Singh with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. and quash the charge-sheet dated

16.02.2019 as well as summoning order dated 13.03.2019 and the entire proceedings

of Case No. 330 of 2019 (State Vs. Ram Dular Singh and others) arising out of Case

Crime No. 119 of 2018, under Sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C.,

Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi, pending in the court of A.C.J.M.-IV,

Varanasi.

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the entire proceedings of Case No. 330 of 2019 (State Vs. Ram Dular Singh and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 119 of 2018, under Sections 149, 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station Lohta, District Varanasi And / or this Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."

3. An order dated 27.05.2024 was passed by another Bench of this Court which reads as under:-

"1. The judgment could not be pronounced on account of sufficient time has been lapsed.

2. The matter requires further clarification.

3. List for further hearing before appropriate Court in due course."

4. The said order dated 27.05.2024 was subjected to challenge by the applicant Ramdular Singh before the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 11919 / 2024 (Ramdular Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.) which stood disposed of by an order dated 02.12.2024 by which the Apex Court directed that till such time, the matter is considered next by the High Court, there shall be stay of proceedings before the trial court and the petitioner therein was granted liberty to seek extension of the stay order till disposal of the petition on merits. The roster Bench of this Court was requested to dispose of the petition in accordance with law as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date upon hearing all the parties. The said order reads as under:

“1. Read the office report dated 29th November, 2024.

2. Notice sought to be served on the respondent no.2 appears to have been returned with the postal remark “receiver went somewhere and will return only after 5-6 days, hence notice could not be served.”

3. Having regard to the short issue involved in the special leave petition, we do not consider it necessary to wait for the respondent no.2 to appear. 4. According to the petitioner, a civil dispute has been given the colour of a criminal offence and proceedings launched against him based on the complaint of the respondent no.2. He had approached the High Court with a petition1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 challenging such proceedings. On 28th March, 2023, the High Court reserved judgment without, however, passing any interim order. Exactly 14 (fourteen) months later, i.e., on 27th May, 2024, the High Court de-reserved judgment and directed listing of the said petition before an appropriate Bench.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner expresses a grievance that in the absence of any order of stay passed by the High Court, the proceedings against the petitioner which continued have reached the stage of charges being