Amir Ansari vs State Of U.P. And Another
- Neutral2026:AHC:105839
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
An application to quash charges after they have been framed and a substantial portion of the trial has proceeded (with six prosecution witnesses already examined) is not maintainable where the applicant has failed to explain the delay in filing the application, particularly where the charges were framed nearly five years before the application was filed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Rajeev Upadhyay, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State-opposite party no.1.
2. Present application has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 5.3.2021 passed by learned Additional Session Judge/F.T.C. (Crime Against Women), Jaunpur as well as entire proceeding of Sessions Trial No. 186 of 2020 (State Vs. Amir Ansari), arising out of Case Crime No. 179 of 2020, under sections 376, 354-D, 506 I.P.C. and Section 67 I.T. Act, Police Station-Madiyahun, District- Jaunpur, pending in the court of learned Additional District and Session Judge/F.T.C.-I, Jaunpur.
3. The impugned order dated 05.03.2021 has been challenged by filing the present application on 08.02.2026. By the impugned order dated 05.03.2021, charges have already been framed.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 that all the prosecution witnesses have been examined in the trial court, and the statements of six prosecution witnesses have been appended along with the present application. The laches have not been properly explained in this matter, and the present application is not maintainable.
5. I have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.
6. The order framing charge has been challenged by filing the present application on 08.02.2026. Total six prosecution witnesses have been examined in the trial court. The delay has not been properly explained by the applicant. At this stage, this Court cannot interfere in the matter.
7. The present application lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.
(Vivek Kumar Singh,J.)
May 7, 2026
Radhika
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free