ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.13 SECTION II

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

DPD1R S 7 O i i a e g g :t a3 O n i e t s8 a a :J o : l t 2Al 5 u n y 03 r : S e s 2 I i H 6 S g N . nA T0 o eR3 t d . V M1 b e 6 Ay rifi ed M M M M r r r r . . . . A A M A n n o y a k n u n i u s t t h K S T u A i i m n n w a a g a r n h r , d i , T , A o d A m A v O a d . R r v , . Adv.

O R D E R

Heard learned counsel and learned senior counsel for the respective parties. This Order shall be read in continuation of the Orders dated 10.12.2025 and 10.02.2026 passed in this petition.

CONTEXT

2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner placed before us an Order dated 09.03.2026 [2026:AHC:47570] passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’, in Criminal Misc. Clarification Application No.02 of 2026 in Criminal Appeal No.11855 of 2025. The said Criminal Misc. Clarification Application was filed by the petitioner seeking clarification as to whether the Order dated 19.12.2025 [2025:AHC:229451] passed by the said Court in Criminal Appeal No.11855 of 2025 (Maloo v State of U.P. and Another) was also applicable to the co-accused and was not restricted only to accused-Maloo, who had filed the said Criminal Appeal. The operative extract from the Order dated 19.12.2025 states:

‘34. In view of the above, the instant criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Gautam Budh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 (State vs. Maloo & others), the charge-sheet/Supplementary Charge sheet, and the entire criminal proceedings arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B lPG and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act, Police Station Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar stand quashed.’

3. The Order dated 09.03.2026 supra is reproduced hereunder:

‘Criminal Misc. Clarification Application No. 02 of 2026

This application has been filed seeking clarification of the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 11855 of 2025 (Maloo Vs. State of U.P. and Another). The present application is stated to have been filed by the intervenor/complainant-appellant, on whose complaint the FIR in the instant matter was lodged after a preliminary inquiry conducted on the basis of the said complaint.

Today, learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned AGA appearing for the State are present. Learned counsel for the appellant is not present.

I have gone through the order dated 19.12.2025 passed by this Court as well as the affidavit filed in support of the present clarification application.

Since the order dated 19.12.2025 was passed after hearing learned counsel for the parties, the present clarification application is misconceived and, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

4. The instant controversy had arisen when the learned Trial Court, on an argument by co-accused Sheetla Prasad (as noted in the Trial Court’s Order dated 23.12.2025), urging that as the First Information Report, Hereinafter referred to as the ‘FIR’, Cognizance/Summoning Order dated 20.03.2023, Charge-sheet/Supplementary Charge-Sheet and entire criminal proceedings arising from Case Crime No.280/2022 stood quashed by the High Court’s Order dated 19.12.2025 in the Criminal Appeal preferred by accused-Maloo, the benefit thereof should also enure to the said accused, called upon the prosecution to assist on/clarify the issue.

5. We are at a loss to understand as to why the learned Trial Court considered it necessary to seek assistance from the prosecution on the above issue. In our considered opinion, a perusal of Order dated 19.12.2025, especially Paragraphs No.16, 18, 21, 23, 24, 31 and 34 (where only Sessions Trial No.364/2023 is mentioned), affords no manner of doubt that the said Order was passed only in respect of accused-Maloo. The cited paragraphs would clearly demonstr