JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicants Sri Siddharth Luthra, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Rajiv Lochan Shukla & Ravikant Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. Criminal misc. application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No.26271 of 2021 has been filed by the accused-applicants to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2020, as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur, in Sessions Trial No.385 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime No.609 of 2001, under sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 298, 505, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur (State Vs. Shahid Badr Falahi & others), as well as the impugned orders dated 19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019, passed by the State Government, granting sanction under section 196 Cr.P.C. against the accused-applicants for their prosecution in the aforesaid criminal case, and consequently to quash the impugned criminal proceeding. 3. Another application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No.10551 of 2020 is filed by the co-accused Human Ahmad Siddiqui with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 18.01.2020, passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur, in S.T. No.386 of 2019 (State Vs. Hamam Ahmad Siddiqui), arising out of Case Crime No.609 of 2001, under sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 505, 298, 120-B, IPC, Police Station Kotwali, District Gorakhpur, as well as sanctioning order dated 19.11.2018. 4. Both the cases are connected to each other and related to same matter, hence being disposed of by a common judgment. 5. An FIR, Case Crime No.609 of 2001, under sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, 298, 505, 120-B, IPC, was lodged at Police Station Kotwali City, District Gorakhpur, on 21.09.2001 regarding the incident dated 15.09.2001, naming Shahid Badra Falahi, Hamam Mohammed. During the investigation the name of other co-accused persons also came into light. After investigation one charge sheet dated 23.01.2002 filed against the accused-applicants Shahid Badra Falahi, Fazlur Rahman, Daud Husain Khan & Rashid Husain and another charge sheet dated 30.07.2002 was filed in absconder against Humam @ Humam Ahmad Siddiqui. Learned Magistrate taken cognizance on the first charge sheet on 04.05.2002. The accused-applicants of the aforesaid charge sheet challenged the cognizance order in Criminal Misc. Learned Magistrate taken cognizance on the first charge sheet on 04.05.2002. The accused-applicants of the aforesaid charge sheet challenged the cognizance order in Criminal Misc. Application under section 482 Cr.P.C. No.2524 of 2003, and this Court, disposed of the aforesaid application vide order dated 08.05.2003, directing the court, taking cognizance, to examine whether the previous sanction of the appropriate Government, has been obtained or not, which is condition precedent for taking cognizance. It further directed that the court, before proceeding further in the matter shall first decide this point and thereafter pass the order according to law, keeping in view section 196 of the Cr.P.C., within one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order. The learned Magistrate without making compliance of the aforesaid order committed the case to the court of sessions on 27.07.2006. The accused-applicants moved an application before the court of sessions under section 227 Cr.P.C. for discharge on the ground that cognizance has been taken and case has been committed without any prosecution sanction, which is a condition precedent under section 196 Cr.P.C. The sessions court on the aforesaid application passed an order on 29.09.2007 and remitted the matter back to the learned Magistrate to ensure the compliance of the order passed by the High Court and pass appropriate order thereupon and proceed according to law. The matter remain pending in the court of learned Magistrate and ultimately on 02.09.2019 the learned Magistrate again committed the case to the court of sessions. Copies of the prosecution sanction dated 19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019 are on record, but it is not clear, when this prosecution sanction was filed in the court by prosecution. On the charge sheet filed against co-accused Humam Ahmad Siddiqui, cognizance was taken on 16.08.2002. As the charge sheet was in absconder, he was declared as absconder, and the case was fixed for proceeding under section 299 Cr.P.C. The same proceeding continued till 10.03.2008. On 23.06.2008 the accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, later on he was enlarged on bail. The case remain pending for supplying copies and thereafter fixed for committal proceeding and ultimately this case was also committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 02.09.2019. On 23.06.2008 the accused was arrested and produced before the learned Magistrate, later on he was enlarged on bail. The case remain pending for supplying copies and thereafter fixed for committal proceeding and ultimately this case was also committed to the court of sessions vide order dated 02.09.2019. In Sessions Trial No.386 of 2019 and Sessions Trial No.385 of 2019 separate applications were moved by the accused-applicants, alleging therein that direction be issued to the learned Magistrate in the light of the order of Hon’ble High Court dated 08.05.2003 and further order of Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C., Court No.2, Gorakhpur. It is also alleged that the High Court vide order dated 08.05.2003 has given some directions to the learned Magistrate, but the learned Magistrate without making compliance of the directions of the High Court has committed the case to the court of sessions. The court of Additional Sessions Judge, directed the learned Magistrate vide order dated 29.08.2007 to consider, whether sanction under section 196 Cr.P.C has been obtained or not. Thereafter, after obtaining prosecution sanction the case has been again committed to the court of sessions. Both the above applications have been rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur, vide order dated 18.01.2020, passed separately in both the sessions trial. 6. Learned counsel for the applicants vehemently contended that charge sheet was filed without obtaining requisite prosecution sanction of section 196 Cr.P.C., which is mandatory for taking cognizance of the offence complained of, but the learned Magistrate failed to consider it and taken cognizance on the charge sheet. This order was challenged before the High Court and the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 08.05.2003 directed the learned Magistrate to consider the necessity of the prosecution sanction required under section 196 Cr.P.C. and pass an appropriate order on it within a month. The learned Magistrate failed to comply this order and without making compliance of the aforesaid order has committed the case to the court of sessions. The matter was raised before the court of sessions and vide order dated 29.09.2007 the court of sessions remitted the matter to the learned Magistrate for ensuring compliance of the order of Hon’ble High Court dated 08.05.2003. The learned Magistrate kept the matter pending for nearly 17 years. Ultimately, prosecution sanction orders dated 19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019 were passed by the State Government. The learned Magistrate kept the matter pending for nearly 17 years. Ultimately, prosecution sanction orders dated 19.11.2018 and 16.11.2019 were passed by the State Government. The learned Magistrate without ensuring the compliance of the Hon’ble High Court order dated 08.05.2003, committed the case again to the court of sessions. The learned counsel for the applicant contended that post cognizance sanction cannot cure the illegality. It is also contended that learned trial court has clearly failed to notice that the delay in obtaining the requisite sanction for prosecution for the last 17 years was attributable to the prosecuting agency and no fault left with accused-applicants, who are facing that proceeding since last 19 years causing irreparable loss to the social esteem and reputation. The impugned criminal proceeding, therefore, are clear abuse of the process of the court. It is further contended that the learned Sessions Judge also failed to notice that the constitutional guarantee of speedy trial and justice under Article 21 of the Constitution of the accused-applicants has been clearly violated in the instant case as the prosecuting agency has failed to offer any plausible explanation whatsoever for the delay of 17 years in obtaining requisite sanction for their prosecution. The learned Judge also failed to notice that in such situation permitting further prosecution against the accused-applicants after 17 years would be a travesty of justice and a mere ritual or formality, which will burden unnecessarily the court. A period of nearly 20 years have passed since the registration of the FIR against the accused-applicants, now the trial proceedings according to law have yet to be commenced as the State Govt. without any explanation of delay of 17 years since submission of charge-sheet has granted requisite sanction, the accused-applicants have been deprived of their constitutional right to speedy trial flowing from Article 21 of the Constitution therefore further continuation of the impugned criminal proceedings pending against them are clearly unwarranted and abuse of process of court. The learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the case of 'Mahendra Lal Das Vs. State of Bihar and others', (2002) 1 SCC 149 and 'Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar', (2009) 3 SCC 355 . It is also contended on the part of the accused Humam Ahmad Siddiqui that Humam Ahmad @ Hamam Ahmad has been mentioned in the FIR as Humam Mohammad. Similarly sanction order also speaks of Humam Mohammad. State of Bihar and others', (2002) 1 SCC 149 and 'Vakil Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar', (2009) 3 SCC 355 . It is also contended on the part of the accused Humam Ahmad Siddiqui that Humam Ahmad @ Hamam Ahmad has been mentioned in the FIR as Humam Mohammad. Similarly sanction order also speaks of Humam Mohammad. The real name of applicant is Humam Ahmad Siddiqui son of Ansarul Hassan, resident of Hanif Nagar, Near Masjid Belal, Pyare Patti Road, District Sultanpur. The applicant has no alias. A deliberate attempt has been made to implicate the applicant by using alias, on the identity of the applicant without any basis or material. For the last 35 years, the applicant is not residing in Village Teari, Police Station Gosaiganj, District Sultanpur and is residing at 49, Khairabad (Lucknow Naka) Sultanpur. After the year 2000 applicant is residing at Hanif Nagar, Near Masjid Belal, Pyare Patti Road, District Sultanpur. The applicant is registered with the Bar Council of U.P. as an advocate in the year 2000 on the aforesaid address. Due to deliberate inclusion of the name of applicant on an address, where the applicant did not reside, he never new about the pendency of the any proceeding against him. For the first time he came to know the proceeding in the year 2008. Thereafter he was arrested and produced before the concerned court and he was bailed out on 25.07.2008. Since then the proceeding is continuing against him. It is also submitted that applicant has moved applications dated 26.05.2009 and 29.03.20211 seeking indulgence of the learned Magistrate to return the charge sheet and discharge the applicant in absence of compliance of section 196 Cr.P.C. The applicant has been denied an opportunity to seek discharge and the learned trial court misinterpretating the application filed before it straightaway directed framing of charges against the applicant. Even otherwise, on the fact of the case, FIR is taken at its face value, does not constitute any offence, much less a cognizable offence punishable under sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, IPC alongwith sections 505 and 506, IPC. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the applicant was member of any unlawful/illegal organization. Even otherwise, on the fact of the case, FIR is taken at its face value, does not constitute any offence, much less a cognizable offence punishable under sections 153-A, 153-B, 124-A, IPC alongwith sections 505 and 506, IPC. There is no material on record to demonstrate that the applicant was member of any unlawful/illegal organization. It is further contended that prosecution sanction with regard to accused-applicants Fazlur Rahman, Daud Husain and Rashid Husain have been granted by the Government vide order dated 16.11.2019, while the learned Magistrate has committed the entire case to the court of sessions before it on 02.09.2019, which includes the case of aforesaid three accused also. Learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on the following decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court as well as High Court:- “(i) Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka Vs. Kind Emperor, ILR 1978 Bom 316. (ii) Basdeo Aggarwalla Vs Kind Emperor (1945 58 LW 313 (FB). (iii) Manoj Rai & Ors Vs. State of MP (1999) 6 SCC 728. (iv) Abdul Mian & Ors Vs. The King (1951 CrLJ 710 Patna HC. (v) State of U.P. Vs. Gayur & Ors 2019 SCC Online All 4920 Allahabad HC. (vi) Arun Jaitley Vs. State of U.P., 2015 SCC Online All 9413 Allahabad HC. (vii) Balwant Singh Vs. State of Punjab (1995), 3 SCC 214, (viii) Manzar Sayeed Khan Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 5 SCC 1 . (ix) Common Cause & Anr Vs. UOI, WP © No.683 of 2016. (x) Patricia Mukhim Vs. State of Meghalaya, 2021 SCC Online SC 258, (xi) Chakra Behara & Ors Vs. Balakrishna Mohapatra, AIR 1963 Ori 23 . (xii) State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp(1) SCC 336.” 7. It is undisputed that both the charge sheets were filed without compliance of section 196 Cr.P.C., regarding prosecution sanction, which was necessary for taking cognizance for offence complained of. Cognizance order was challenged before this Court. Following directions was given vide order dated 08.05.2003:- “It is hereby directed to the court taking cognizance to examine whether the previous sanction of the appropriate Government has been obtained or not which is a condition precedent for taking cognizance. Cognizance order was challenged before this Court. Following directions was given vide order dated 08.05.2003:- “It is hereby directed to the court taking cognizance to examine whether the previous sanction of the appropriate Government has been obtained or not which is a condition precedent for taking cognizance. The court below proceeding further in the matter shall first decide this point and thereafter pass the order according to law, keeping in view Section 196 of the Code of Criminal procedure, within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With this direction the application is disposed of finally.” 8. Unfortunately the learned Magistrate without making any compliance of the aforesaid order, committed the case to the court of sessions. When the matter was raised before the court of sessions, it remitted the matter to learned Magistrate to pass appropriate order in compliance of the direction of the High Court. The most unfortunate aspects is that the learned Magistrate kept the matter pending for years. The applications were moved before him by the accused persons, but the learned Magistrate failed to pass any order on it. He also failed to comply the order of this Court dated 08.05.2003, within stipulated period of one month, rather he ignored it completely and kept the matter pending till he finally committed the case to the court of sessions on 02.09.2019, without complying the order of High Court. The aforesaid act of the learned Magistrate is contemptuous as well. When the matter was again committed to the court of sessions, the accused-applicants moved applications before the sessions court, but the learned sessions court without appreciating the facts and law on the point and without taking into consideration the legal provision on flimsy ground has rejected the application making observation that the case is at its preliminary stage, even after more than 16 years have lapsed since 2003, which is an example that how a case can be prolonged on technical point. The aforesaid comments of the learned sessions court is wholly unwarranted. In the delay of the proceeding, clearly there is no role of the accused-applicants. The cause of the delay is apparent, which is latches on the part of the prosecution itself as well as on the part of the learned Magistrate, who has failed to comply the order of High Court dated 08.05.2003. In the delay of the proceeding, clearly there is no role of the accused-applicants. The cause of the delay is apparent, which is latches on the part of the prosecution itself as well as on the part of the learned Magistrate, who has failed to comply the order of High Court dated 08.05.2003. The learned sessions court should have considered the consequences of the non compliance of the order of the High Court dated 08.05.2003 and further the effect of post cognizance prosecution sanction and further the prosecution sanction of three accused is post committal proceeding. It should have also considered the legality and validity of the entire proceeding from the very beginning that of from the cognizance stage. It is also evident that while rejecting the application moved by the accuse-applicants, the learned sessions court has posted the matter for framing charge, without giving any opportunity of hearing on the point of charge to the accused-applicant. As the legal points raised by the accused-applicants have not been decided by the sessions court, it will not be proper for this Court to enter into merits of the arguments advanced by the learned counsels for the parties. It will be just and proper to direct the trial court i.e. the concerned court of sessions where cases are pending to consider all the legal aspects and the legal objections, raised by the accused-applicants, provide them opportunity for hearing on the point of charge and then pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of law. 9. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that order dated 18.01.2020 is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable to be quashed. 10. The application under section 482 Cr.P.C. is hereby partly allowed only in respect of quashing the order dated 18.01.2020 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur. The applicants may move a fresh application within 15 days after obtaining a certified copy, raising all their legal objections and legal points against the prosecution and may also pray for discharge. The sessions court after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties will dispose of the same with a reasoned order in accordance with the provisions of law, within one month from the date of filing of the such applications before it.