Supreme Court Says Allahabad HC Judge 'Abdicated Responsibility' By Not Clarifying If Quashing Order Applied To Co-Accused

The Supreme Court criticised an Allahabad High Court judge for failing to clarify whether an order quashing criminal proceedings applied to co-accused persons, and directed that related petitions be heard by another Bench of the High Court.

A Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan said the High Court's refusal to clarify the scope of its earlier order had created confusion before the trial court. It requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to assign the pending petitions arising from the same FIR to a Judge or Bench other than the one who passed the earlier orders, and to ensure their disposal within three months.

The Court observed that the High Court had dismissed a clarification application as “misconceived” despite the existence of multiple pending petitions by co-accused persons in the same case. It termed the non-consideration of the clarification request through a non-speaking and unreasoned order as “absolutely erroneous.”

"We find the non-consideration of the prayer for clarification, that too by a non-speaking and unreasoned order, to be absolutely erroneous. The learned Single Judge appears to have abdicated the responsibility of clarifying the situation, whereby confusion was created, or at least, sought to be created, by the co-accused before the learned Trial Court. More so, as noted above, Criminal Appeal(s)/Application(s) under Section 482 of the Code/Criminal Misc. Writ Petition(s) filed by the co-accused were pending consideration in the High Court. At this juncture, we refrain from further commenting on the Order dated 09.03.2026 only in the interest of judicial propriety." 

Clarifying the legal position, the Supreme Court held that the High Court's earlier order dated December 19, 2025, quashing criminal proceedings operated only in favour of the accused who had filed the appeal and did not automatically extend to other co-accused.

Consequently, the Court quashed the trial court's order that had extended the benefit of the quashing order to other accused persons and revived the sessions trials against all accused except the appellant concerned.

The Bench also cautioned that trial courts should avoid raising or permitting unnecessary issues of interpretation, noting that such exercises may lead to delay and miscarriage of justice.

The matter relates to allegations that about 300 bighas of land in Gautam Budh Nagar were allegedly purchased by pressurising poor farmers from weaker sections.  

As per brief facts, a complainant filed a criminal miscellaneous clarification application before single judge of the Allahabad High Court seeking clarification as to whether his order dated December 19, 2025, was also applicable to the co-accused.

By an order dated December 19, single judge had allowed a criminal appeal filed by accused Maloo and quashed the criminal proceedings arising out of case crime no. 280/2022, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(f) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988.

Subsequent to this, co-accused Sheetla Prasad approached the Trial Court and urged it to quash proceedings qua her on the basis of the High Court's order December 19. The Trial Court called upon the prosecution to clarity on the issue and subsequently passed an order dated February 6, extending the December 19 order to Prasad.

Later, the complainant filed an application before the High Court seeking clarification if the December 19 order applied to co-accued. However, vide order dated March 9, the single judge dismissed the criminal miscellaneous stating that since the December 19 order was passed hearing parties, the present clarification is "misconceived".

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan said that the bench is surprised and "unable to appreciate" why the single judge, who had passed the two orders, said that the clarification application was misconceived. 

While the bench did not comment on the merits of the December 19 order, it clarified that the order will operate only in respect to accused Maloo. Resultantly, it quashed the Trial Court's order and stated that the same was passed under a fundamental misconception of law and the Trial Court is revived against all accused persons.

The Supreme Court questioned as to why the Trial Court sought assistance when the December 19 order is clear that it was passed only in respect to accused Maloo. It cautioned that the Trial Court ought not to raise or permit to be raised, "issues of interpretation unnecessarily," as such exercises may cause delay and miscarriage of justice. 

"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 demonstrate that the learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 19.12.2025, considered the matter vis-à-vis the accused-Maloo alone. As such, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to call upon the prosecution in this backdrop."

The Court also noted that the proceedings against accused Maloo had been stayed by the High Court vide order November 6, 2023 under Section 482 CrPC application and other similar petitions are pending. It directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to transfer these matters to another judge/bench.

"The record also demonstrates that 8 separate petitions [Criminal Appeal(s)/ Application(s) under Section 482 of the Code/Criminal Misc. Writ Petition(s)] are pending in the High Court, emanating from the underlying FIR. In the circumstances, we request the learned Chief Justice, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad to assign the said petitions to any learned Judge/Bench, other than the learned Single Judge who has passed the Orders dated 19.12.2025 and 06.02.2026, for hearing without being influenced by the said Orders."

The bench has asked the nominated judge to decide whether a stay on the Sessions Trial No. 364/2023 needs to be continued or not. It requested the nominated judge/bench to make endeavours to dispose of the petitions within 3 months. It has asked the Registry to transmit the instant order to the Trial Court and the High Court. 

Case Details: PRATAP SINGH vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH| Diary No. - 61335/2024

Click Here To Read Order

Appearances: For Petitioner : Mr. Dhananjai Jain, AOR Mr. Anurag Mishra, Adv. Mr. Bhoop Singh, Adv. Mrs. Omita Unnarkar, Adv.

For Respondents : Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Sr. Adv. Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Ms. Sthavi Asthana, Adv. Mr. Aniket Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pankaj Singhal, Adv. Ms. Ashima Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chandan Kashyap, Adv. Ms. Harshita Raj, Adv. Mr. Anant Singh Tomar, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Monu Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ayush Anand, AO