The Supreme Court recently clarified that a Allahabad High Court order quashing criminal proceedings in a NOIDA land scam applies only to the accused who approached the court and not to every accused person [Pratap Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.]
Hence, it set aside a trial court order passed on a mistaken reading of the High Court’s ruling.
The apex court stepped in after confusion at the trial court level, where co-accused claimed the same benefit.
The bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice K Vinod Chandran noted that a clarification application had been filed by the complainant before the High Court to resolve the confusion, but was dismissed as “misconceived” without reasons.
“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,” the Supreme Court said.
The case arose from allegations relate to land transactions involving about 300 bighas, where farmers were allegedly pressured into selling land at very low prices.
A first information report (FIR) was registered in Gautam Budh Nagar alleging offences under several sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) including cheating (Section 420), forgery (Sections 467, 468, 471), extortion (Section 384), criminal conspiracy (Section 120B) and provisions under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act).
The High Court, in December 2025, had quashed the FIR, chargesheet and entire criminal proceedings in a criminal appeal filed by one accused, Maloo.
Following this, other accused argued before the trial court that since the entire proceedings had been quashed, the benefit should extend to them as well.
The trial court had sought the prosecution’s assistance on whether the High Court’s order applied to all the accused.
Subsequently, the trial court accepted the co-accused’s contention that the High Court order applied to them as well.
Questioning this approach, the Supreme Court said,
“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 its order dated March 12, the Supreme Court held that a plain reading of the High Court’s order made it clear that it was passed only with respect to the accused before it, and not the other accused.
It found that the trial court’s order based on this misunderstanding was legally unsustainable and set it aside, reviving the proceedings against all accused except Maloo.
Additionally, the Court cautioned trial courts against raising unnecessary interpretative issues that could delay proceedings.
“We would also observe that the learned 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,” it said.
The Court directed that the quashing petitions filed by the co-accused, which are pending before the High Court, be placed before a different Bench and decided independently on their own merits, preferably within three months.
It further sought the State of Uttar Pradesh's response on steps taken in light of the allegations in the FIR, including whether any action has been initiated to restore land to farmers or cancel sale transactions.
The matter is scheduled to be heard next on March 17.
Advocates Dhananjai Jain, Anurag Mishra, Bhoop Singh and Omita Unnarka appeared for the petitioner.
Senior Advocates Rajdipa Behura and Sanjay Hegde along with advocates Vijendra Singh, Sthavi Asthana, Aniket Tiwari, Pankaj Singhal, Ashima Gupta, Chandan Kashyap, Harshita Raj, Anant Singh Tomar, Ankit Tiwari, Monu Kumar and Ayush Anan represented the State and other respondents.
[Read Order]