Disposed

Teekam Singh v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC5 Apr 2018A482/11065/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking expeditious disposal of an 8-year-old criminal trial. The High Court directed the trial court to conclude the trial within six months and decide pending discharge applications within two months of the order.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide pending discharge applications within two months and conclude the trial within six months.

Teekam Singh Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11065 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Teekam Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the record.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the informant seeking expeditious disposal of Crime No. 14311 of 2008 arising out of Case Crime No. 439 of 2007, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 506 I.P.C., Police Station-Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate-II, Gautam Budh Nagar.

¶7

In this regard, it has been submitted that the applicant had earlier approached this court for the same relief by means of Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. No. 24854 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2009 with the following directions:

¶8

"The trial is of the year 2008, hence no such direction is required. However, in view of the facts and circumstances, it is expected that the trial court will conclude the trial, as expeditiously as possible, within six months in accordance with law, without unreasonable delay.

¶9

With the aforesaid observation this application is finally disposed off."

¶10

It is thus submitted that the trial is still pending, despite eight years having passed since the direction was issued on 18.09.2009. On the other hand the accused has yet not appeared in the trial and has yet not applied for bail.

¶11

In this regard, it has further been submitted that earlier the accused had approached this court by means of Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 612 of 2009, which was disposed of vide order dated 5.5.2015 with the following observations:

¶12

"After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the averments made in the present application, the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the aforementioned case is refused.

¶13

However, it is provided that in case, the applicants move an appropriate application for discharge through counsel before the concerned Court below within a period of one month from today, the same shall be

¶14

considered and disposed off as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law, by the concerned Court below preferably within a period of four months, thereafter. For a period of five months from today or till the disposal of the discharge application, whichever is earlier, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforesaid case.

¶15

In case no such application is filed within a period of one month from today, as prescribed above, the present order shall stand automatically vacated.

¶16

With the aforesaid directions, this application is finally disposed off. "

¶17

The accused though applied for discharge, however, the said application is also stated to be still pending. Subsequently, non bailable warrant appear to have been issued against the accused. Against that, Criminal Revision No. 701of 2010 was filed and the same was disposed of vide order dated 16.02,.2010 with the following observations:

¶18

"After having heard learned counsel for the revisionists and learned A.G.A. for the State, this criminal revision is disposed of with the direction that in case the revisionists surrender themselves in the concerned court within a period of three weeks from today and move the application for bail in the aforesaid case crime number, the same shall be decided by the court concerned expeditiously and preferably on the same day.

¶19

For such three weeks, no coercive measure shall be adopted to procure the attendance of the revisionists."

¶20

It is submitted that in such circumstance, the trial has remained pending.

¶21

Considering the fact that the trial has remained pending for very long and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed of with a direction that in case any accused has already filed discharge application in compliance of the order passed by this Court, the same may be decided within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. Then the learned trial court may proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible so as to conclude the same within a period six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, if there is no other legal impediment.

¶22

Order Date :- 5.4.2018 Lbm/-

Teekam Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Teekam Singh v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarla Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Sharan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Satendra Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Rahul Vs State of U.P. and Another

Baburam Bharti and 3 Ors. Vs State Ofu.P. and Another

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. and Another