# Sanjay Agarwal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 728
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-19
- **Case number:** Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 35164 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ms. Nand Prabha Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sanjay-agarwal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52979
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Even if we assume for a moment that the
concerned
lawyer
was
careless
or
negligent, this, by itself, cannot be a
ground to condone long and inordinate
delay as the litigant owes a duty to be
vigilant of his own rights and is expected to
be equally vigilant about the judicial
proceedings pending in the court initiated
at his instance. The litigant, therefore,
should not be permitted to throw the entire
blame on the head of the advocate and
thereby disown him at any time and seek
relief."

19. The record before the National
Commission shows that the order dated
23.11.2023 was received by the appellant
on 06.12.2023 whereas before this court,
the petitioner has pleaded that the order
dated 23.11.2023 came to notice of the
LDA on 14.12.2023. Therefore, the plea
taken before this Court that the delay
occurred because the petitioner's Advocate
had not informed about the order dated
23.11.2023, is false. Making two self
contradictory statements on oath makes it
manifest that the petitioner has approached
this Court with a dishonest intention and
with unclean hands, which disentitles it to
claim
the
discretionary
relief
of
condonation of delay of 544 days in filing
the appeal. When it is apparent on the face
of the record that the petitioner has not
approached this court with clean hands and
has made statements which are contrary to
the statements made on oath earlier, it is
apparent that the petitioner has not been
able to give a sufficient explanation for the
inordinate delay of 544 days in filing the
appeal and it is merely trying to create an
excuse for condonation of delay.

20. In these circumstances, this court
finds no good ground to interfere in the
impugned order dated 30.07.2025, passed
by
the
National
Consumer
Disputes
Redressal
Commission,
New
Delhi
rejecting the application for condonation of
544 days? delay in filing the appeal.

21. The petition lacks merit and the
same is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 728
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. NAND PRABHA SHUKLA, J.

Application U/S 528 BNSS. No. 35164 of 2025

Sanjay Agarwal ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether the trial ought to have been conducted
in the manner as prescribed under Chapter
XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the
provisions of Sections 244 or 245 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure would not apply to the
proceedings of the Complaint Case pending
before a Special Court which happens to be the
learned Sessions Judge under the U.P. Dacoity
Affected Areas Act, 1983

Head Notes
The Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections
452, 323, 504, 506, 392, 406, 420 & 120B;
The Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas
Act, 1983- Sections 2(b) & 7; The Code of
Criminal Procedure-1973- Sections 5, 244
& 245, Chapter XVIII; The Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita,2023-Section
582- The Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected
Areas Act is a Special Act and Section 7 of
the Act expressly lays down the procedure
and power of a Special Court which has
been constituted by virtue of Section 5 of
the Cr.P.C. The Special Court thus consists
of the Sessions Judge or the Additional
Sessions Judge, empowered to try the
scheduled
offences
by
following
the
12 All. Sanjay Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
729
procedure
provided
by
the
Code
of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the trial of
Sessions Cases. The Special Court has to
follow the procedure set down by the
Cr.P.C. under Chapter XVIII which relates
to trial before the Court of Session. If the
prescribed procedure is not adopted then
it is either a case of lack of jurisdiction
and is an abuse of the process of law-
Application allowed.(E-15)

Held- As District Jhansi has been notified by the
State Government as a Dacoity Affected Area
and Section 392 IPC is classified as a Scheduled
offence under Section 2(b) of the U.P Act No. 31
of 1983, therefore, in the instant matter trial
must proceed as per Section 7 of the U.P. Act
No. 31 of 1983 which empowers the Special
Court to follow the procedure as provided under
Chapter XVIII of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(Para 15, 18 & 19)

Case Law Cited
Gangula Ashok and Another Vs. Andhra Pradesh
2000 (2) SCC 504

List of Acts
The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Uttar
Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983;
The Code of Criminal Procedure-1973-;
The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023

List of Keywords
Uttar Pradesh Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983;
Special Act and Section 7 of the Act expressly
lays down the procedure and power of a Special
Court; constituted by virtue of Section 5 of the
Cr.P.C; Special Court has to follow the
procedure set down by the Cr.P.C. under
Chapter XVIII; prescribed procedure is not
adopted; abuse of the process of law.

Case Arising From
The impugned orders dated 26.06.2024 and
30.05.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge
(Dacoity Affected Area), Jhansi in Complaint
Case No. 103 of 2023 (Rajeev Agarwal and
others Vs. Sanjay Agarwal) under Sections 452,
323, 504, 506, 392, 406, 420, 120B IPC, Police
Station-Kotwali, District-Jhansi, pending in the
Court of learned Special Judge (Dacoity Affected
Area), Jhansi.
Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Atharva Dixit, Pranav
Tiwary
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shashank
Shekhar, Sheo Ram Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ms. Nand Prabha
Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Atharva Dixit, learned
counsel for the applicant, Mr. Sheo Ram
Singh, learned counsel for the opposite
party Nos. 2 to 4, Sri Ratan Singh, learned
A.G.A.-I for the State and perused the
record.

2. The present application under
Section 528 B.N.S.S. has been filed with
the prayer to quash the impugned orders
dated 26.06.2024 and 30.05.2025 passed by
the
learned
Special
Judge
(Dacoity
Affected Area), Jhansi in Complaint Case
No. 103 of 2023 (Rajeev Agarwal and
others Vs. Sanjay Agarwal) under Sections
452, 323, 504, 506, 392, 406, 420, 120B
IPC,
Police
Station-Kotwali,
DistrictJhansi, pending in the Court of learned
Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area),
Jhansi.

3. Briefly stated, the applicant
lodged a complaint in the Court of learned
Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area),
Jhansi as Complaint Case No. 103 of 2023
(Sanjay Agarwal Vs. Rajeev Agrawal and
others)
wherein
vide
order
dated
16.02.2024, the opposite party Nos. 2 to 4
have been summoned to face the trial under
Sections 392, 452, 120B, 504, 506 IPC.

4. After taking cognizance, the
learned Trial Court had fixed 06.06.2024
for the framing of the charges and on
26.06.2024, the date was fixed for
recording of the evidence under Section
244 Cr.P.C.
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
5. It has been submitted that the
respondents/accused moved an application
under Section 39B before the learned Trial
Court which was allowed vide order dated
30.05.2025 permitting, them to crossexamine P.W.-2 on the basis of the
evidence adduced under Section 244
Cr.P.C.

6. The main submission of learned
counsel for the applicant is that the
procedure adopted by the learned Special
Court for trying a Scheduled offence i.e.,
Section 392 IPC is illegal and against the
procedure prescribed. It has been submitted
that the instant complaint was lodged
against the respondents/accused in the
Court of Special Court (Dacoity Affected
Area) Jhansi. The cognizance was taken
and summoning order was passed u/s 392,
452,120B,504, 506 & 392 IPC which is a
Scheduled offence under the provisions of
the UP Dacoity Affected Area Act, 1983
therefore
trial
ought
to
have
been
conducted in the manner as prescribed
under Chapter XVIII of the Code of
Criminal Procedure and the provisions of
Sections 244 or 245 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure would not apply to the
proceedings of the Complaint Case pending
before a Special Court which happens to be
the learned Sessions Judge under the U.P.
Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983 (here-inafter referred to as "U.P Act No. 31 of
1983").

7. At this juncture, it is relevant to
refer the provisions of U.P. Dacoity
Affected Areas Act, 1983 whose object is
to make provision for specifying certain
offences in the Dacoity Affected Areas of
the Uttar Pradesh in order to curb
effectively
commission
of
Scheduled
offences and to make provision for
punishment and speedy trial thereof and
further attachment of properties acquired
through the commission of such offences.

8. The State of Uttar Pradesh vide
Government
Notification
(No.
8111P/VIII-3-31) on November 5, 1981 had
declared Jhansi as a Dacoity Affected Area.

9. The Schedule appended to the
said Act classifies Section 392 IPC to be a
Scheduled offence under Section 2(b) of
the U.P. Act No. 31 of 1983.

10. Section 7 of U.P. Act No. 31 of
1983 prescribes the procedure and powers
of the Special Courts:-

 "Section
7.
Procedure
and
powers of Special Courts.- (1) A Special
Court may
take
cognizance
of any
scheduled offence,

 (a) upon receiving a complaint of
facts which constitute such Courts. offence;

 (b) upon a police report of such
facts ;

 (c) upon information received
from any person other than a police officer,
or upon its own knowledge that such
offence has been committed:

 Provided that all cases triable by
a Special Court under this Act, pending
before any Court immediately before the
date of the commencement of this Act in a
dacoity
affected
area,
shall
stand
transferred to the Special Court having
jurisdiction over such cases and shall be
dealt with and disposed of in accordance
with the provisions of this Act.

 (2) A Special Court shall, while
trying a scheduled offence, so far as may
12 All. Sanjay Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
731
be, follow the procedure provided by the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for trial
of sessions cases :

 Provided that the Special Court
may, wherever necessary, perform the
functions of a Magistrate under section 207
of the said Code and proceed to try the
case as if the case had been committed to
Court of Sessions for trial under the
provisions of such Code.

 (3) Save as otherwise expressly
provided in this Act, the provisions of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall, in so far
as they are not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act, apply to the
proceedings before a Special Court and for
the purposes of the provisions of the said
Code, the Special Court shall be deemed to
be a Court of Sessions and the person
conducting the prosecution before a
Special Court shall be deemed to be a
public prosecutor.

 (4) A Special Court may, with a
view to obtain the evidence of any person
supposed to have been directly or
indirectly concerned in or privy to any
scheduled offence, tender a pardon to
such person on condition of his making a
full and true disclosure of the whole
circumstances
within
his
knowledge
relating to the offence and to every other
person concerned whether as principal
abettor in the commission thereof and
any
pardon
so
tendered
shall
for
purposes of section 308 of the said Code,
be deemed to have been tendered under
section 307 thereof.

 (5) A. Special Court may pass
upon any accused person convicted by it
any sentence authorised by law for the
punishment of offence of which such person
is convicted."

11. Ordinarily, the power of taking
cognizance in a Complaint Case in the
Cr.P.C., is vested with the Magistrate as per
the provisions of Section 190 Cr.P.C., but
Section
193
Cr.P.C.,
provides
for
cognizance of the offences in other Courts
also like the Court of Session.

12. Section 193 Cr.P.C., reads as
under:-

 "193. Cognizance of offences by
Courts of Session.- Except as otherwise
expressly provided by this Code or by any
other law for the time being in force, no
Court of Session shall take cognizance of
any offence as a Court of original
jurisdiction unless the case has been
committed to it by a Magistrate under this
Code."

13. The bare reading of provision
of Section 193 indicates that the Court of
Session may also take cognizance of an
offence, if it is empowered to do so by any
other law for the time being in force. This
provision is completely in consonance with
the saving clause contained in Section 5 of
the Cr.P.C., which lays down that nothing
contained in the Code shall in the absence
of a specific provision to the contrary affect
any special or local law for the time being
in force or any special jurisdiction or power
conferred
or
any
special
forum
or
procedure prescribed by any other law for
the time being in force. As such, if the
special laws are in force then the general
laws could not be resorted to as regards the
procedure of a trial or other things
regarding
a
criminal
offence
made
punishable either under the I.P.C or any
other Act for the time being in force.
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14. Section 4(2) of the Cr.P.C.,
deals with the trial of offences under other
laws which reads as under:-

 "4(2) All offences under any other
law shall be investigated, inquired into,
tried, and otherwise dealt with according to
the same provisions, but subject to any
enactment for the time being in force
regulating
the
manner
of
place
of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences."

15. The Uttar Pradesh Dacoity
Affected Areas Act is a Special Act and
Section 7 of the Act expressly lays down
the procedure and power of a Special Court
which has been constituted by virtue of
Section 5 of the Cr.P.C. The Special Court
thus consists of the Sessions Judge or the
Additional Sessions Judge, empowered to
try the scheduled offences by following the
procedure provided by the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the trial of
Sessions Cases. The Special Court has to
follow the procedure set down by the
Cr.P.C. under Chapter XVIII which relates
to trial before the Court of Session. If the
prescribed procedure is not adopted then it
is either a case of lack of jurisdiction and is
an abuse of the process of law.

16.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant has relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Gangula Ashok and Another Vs. Andhra
Pradesh 2000 (2) SCC 504 wherein it was
observed that:

 "Section 193 of the Code has to be
understood in the aforesaid backdrop. The
section imposes an interdict on all Courts of
Session against taking cognizance of any
offence as a court of original jurisdiction. It
can take cognizance only if "the case has
been committed to it by a magistrate", as
provided in the Code, Two segments have
been indicated in Section 193 as exceptions
to the aforesaid interdict. One is, when the
Code itself has provided differently in
express
language
regarding
taking
of
cognizance, and the second is when any other
law has provided differently in express
language regarding taking cognizance of
offences
under
such
law.
The
word
"expressly" which is employed in Section
193 denoting to those exceptions is indicative
of the legislative mandate that a Court of
Session can depart from the interdict
contained in the section only if it is provided
differently in clear and unambiguous terms.
In other words, unless it is positively and
specifically provided differently no Court of
Session can take cognizance of any offence
directly, without the case being committed to
it by a magistrate.

 Neither in the Code nor in the Act
there is any provision whatsoever, not even
by implication, that the specified Court of
Session (Special Court) can take cognizance
of the offence under the Act as a court of
original jurisdiction without the case being
committed to it by a magistrate. If that be so,
there is no reason to think that the chargesheet or a complaint can straightway be filed
before such Special Court for offences under
the Act. It can be discerned from the
hierarchical settings of criminal courts that
the Court of Session is given a superior and
special status. Hence we think that the
legislature would have thoughtfully relieved
the Court of Session from the work of
performing all the preliminary formalities
which magistrates have to do until the case is
committed to the Court of session.

 We have noticed from some of the
decisions rendered by various High Courts
that contentions were advanced based on
12 All. Sanjay Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
733
Sections 4 and 5 of the Code as suggesting
that a departure from Section 193 of the
Code
is
permissible
under
special
enactments. Section 4 of the Code contains
two sub-sections of which the first subsection is of no relevance since it deals
only with offences under the Indian Penal
Code. However, sub-section (2) deals with
offences under other laws and hence the
same can be looked into. Sub- section (2) of
Section 4 is extracted below :

 "All offences under any other law
shall be investigated, inquired into, tried,
and otherwise dealt with according to the
same provisions, but subject to any
enactment for the time being in force
regulating
the
manner
or
place
of
investigating, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences."

 A reading of the sub-section
makes it clear that subject to the provisions
in other enactments all offences under
other Laws shall also be investigated,
inquired into, tried and otherwise dealt
with under the provision of the Code, This
means that if other enactment contains any
provision
which
is
contrary
to
the
provisions of the Code, such other
functions would apply in place of the
particular provision of the Code, If there is
no such contrary provision in other laws,
then provisions of the code would apply to
the matters covered thereby. This aspect
has been emphasised by a Constitution
Bench of this Court in paragraph 16 of the
decision in A.R. Antulay v. Ramdas
Sriniwas Nayak and Anr., [1984] 2 SCC
500. It reads thus:

 "Section
4(2)
provides
for
offences under other law which may be
investigated, inquired into, and otherwise
dealt with accord-ing to the provisions of
the Code of Criminal Procedure but subject
to any enactment for the time being in force
regulating
the
manner
or
place
of
investigation, inquiring into, trying or
otherwise dealing with such offences. In the
absence of a specific provision made in the
statute indicating that offences will have to
be
investigated,
inquired
into,
tried
otherwise dealt with according to that
statute,
the
same
will
have
to
be
investigated, inquired into, tried and
otherwise dealt with according to the Code
of Criminal Pro-cedure. In other words,
Code of Criminal Procedure is the parent
statute which provides for investigation,
inquiring into and trial of cases by criminal
courts of various designations."

 Nor can Section 5 of the Code be
brought in aid for supporting the view that
the Court of Session specified under the Act
can obviate the interdict contained in
Section 193 of the Code as long there is no
provision in the Act empowering the
Special Court to take cognizance of the
offence as a court of original jurisdiction.
Section 5 of the Code reads thus :

 "5. Saving. - Nothing contained in
this Code shall, in the absence of a specific
provision to the contrary, affect any special
or local law for the time being in force, or
any special jurisdiction power conferred,
or
any
special
form
of
procedure
prescribed, by any other law for the time
being force."

 This Court, on a reading of
Section 5 in juxtaposition with Section 4(2)
of the Code, has held that "it only relates to
the extent of application of the Code in the
matter of territorial and other jurisdiction
but does not nullify the effect of Section
4(2); In short, the provisions of this Code
would be applicable to the extent, in the
734 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
absence of any contrary provision in the
special Act or any special provision
including the jurisdiction or ap-plicability
of the Code." (vide para 128 in Directorate
Enforcement v. Deepak Mahajon, [1994] 3
SCC 440.

 Hence we have no doubt that a
Special Court under this Act is essentially a
Court of Session and it can take cognizance
of the offence when the case is committed
to it by the magistrate in accordance with
the provisions of the Code. In other words,
a complaint or a charge sheet cannot
straightway laid before the Special Court
under the Act."

17. Learned A.G.A. for the State
could not dispute the aforesaid facts and
circumstances.

18. As District Jhansi has been
notified by the State Government as a
Dacoity Affected Area and Section 392
IPC is classified as a Scheduled offence
under Section 2(b) of the U.P Act No. 31 of
1983, therefore, in the instant matter trial
must proceed as per Section 7 of the U.P.
Act No. 31 of 1983 which empowers the
Special Court to follow the procedure as
provided under Chapter XVIII of the Code
of Criminal Procedure.

19. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, the Court finds that the
impugned orders dated 26.06.2024 and
30.05.2025 have been passed without
jurisdiction and is an abuse of the process
of the Court. Hence, the impugned orders
dated 26.06.2024 and 30.05.2025 passed by
the
learned
Special
Judge
(Dacoity
Affected Area), Jhansi are hereby set aside
and the matter is remitted back with a
direction to the Court concerned to proceed
with trial afresh, in accordance with the
procedure as discussed above, after giving
opportunity of hearing to both the parties,
expeditiously
without
granting
any
unnecessary or long adjournments to either
of the parties, if there is no other legal
impediment.

20. With the aforesaid direction,
the application u/s 528 B.N.S.S. is allowed.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 734
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 40092 of 2024

Pawan Kumar Singh & Ors. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Issue for Consideration
Whether proceedings of Criminal Case No. 157
of 2024 emanating from Charge Sheet dated
29.01.2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 369 of
2023, PSKotwali Chunar, Mirzapur, for the
offences under Section 354A, 504 & 506 Indian
Penal Code pending before the Court of Civil
Judge, (Junior Division) FTC/offences against
woman, Mirzapur are liable to be quashed.

Head Notes
The Code of Criminal Procedure,1973Sections 216,218,221, 227, 228, 232, 239,
240 & 482; The Indian Evidence Act,
1872-Section 3- The accused has a
remedy to move a discharge application
before
the
concerned
Magistrate
or
Sessions Court. The Court, after providing
an opportunity of hearing, may either
discharge the accused or frame charges
against the accused as per the provisions
of law mentioned in the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 or the Bharatiya Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,
2023-
Application
dismissed.(E-15)