Staying Criminal Proceedings Pending For 34 Yrs, Allahabad HC Seeks Affidavit From UP Govt Officials On State's Litigation Policy

A bench of Justice Saurabh Lavania also directed the Uttar Pradesh government's Director General (Prosecution) and Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) to file their personal affidavits regarding the State Government's litigation policy.

“Let the personal affidavit(s) in response to the present application be filed by Director General (Prosecution), Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow and Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow within two weeks from today. In the affidavit(s), the concerned authorities shall also indicate regarding litigation policy of State of Uttar Pradesh including related to cases similar to present one,” the bench ordered as it posted the matter for a hearing next on January 30.

The Court was essentially dealing with a plea moved by the accused (Madhukar Sharma), who sought quashing of the Chargesheet and summoning order (of February 11, 1994) passed by the Court of ACJM, Lucknow, as well as entire proceedings of a case under Sections. 147, 353, 452, 427 of I.P.C & Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment and Section 2 Damage Property Act.

For context, Sharma has been accused of being part of a group involved in the alleged crime of vandalizing cars and other objects in and around the Vidhan Sabha in 1991 while shouting slogans, asserting they would not allow the government machinery to function.

However, the accused contended that he did not commit any of the acts mentioned in the FIR, nor has any evidence been collected or presented by the investigating officer to substantiate the allegations against him.

Before the High Court, his counsel, Advocate Ali Bin Saif, assisted by Advocate Kaif Hasan, argued that the petitioner had been residing outside the concerned court's territorial jurisdiction since the lodging of the FIR. To date, he has not received any summons and only after conducting an inquiry did the petitioner become aware of the case.

It was also contended that the trial court, after issuing a summons against him without any report of service or mention of the same in the order sheet, directly issued a non-bailable warrant (NBW) against him in August 1997 and thus, erred in not issuing a bailable warrant.

Furthermore, the court was informed that in January 2018, an order under Sections 82 and 83 of the CrPC was passed against the petitioner without recording its satisfaction. In view of this, quashing of the criminal proceedings was prayed for.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the single judge considered the delays attributed to the State/prosecution in concluding the criminal proceedings and the fact that the criminal case relates to offences punishable by a maximum sentence of seven years and a fine.

The Court also took into account High Court observations in the case of Madan Mohan Saxena vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 29 to observe that its indulgence was required in the case.

Thus, the court stayed the proceedings in the case and called for an affidavit from concerned officials on the state's litigation policy.