This order addressed delay in the trial of a criminal case under Section 482 CrPC. The single judge directed the lower court to conclude the trial within six months, citing a Supreme Court judgment on speedy trials, and disposed of the application.
Directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, to decide the criminal case within six months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 17
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4268 of 2018
Applicant :- Anil Kumar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Naveen Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- A.G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh-I,J.
This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C has been moved with a prayer to quash the criminal case no. 3104 of 2010 (State vs. Anil Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No.1107 of 2009 under sections 279, 337, 338, 427 and 304-A IPC P.S. Vrindawan, District Mathura, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura.
It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is facing trial of this case since 19.4.2010 but the court below has not decided the case as yet. According to the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the case of Common Cause vs. Union of India, 1996 UPCrR 489 the cases punishable with imprisonment upto two years, should be decided within two years.
A perusal of the order sheet indicates that the case is pending since 19.4.2010 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mathura and that the case is still listed for copies of the documents to be provided to the accused. Therefore, it is evident that the court below has not taken up the proceedings in this expeditiously. The court below is directed to decide this case expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.
With the aforesaid direction, this application is finally disposed of.
Order Date :- 15.3.2018 AU
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the trial court has unduly delayed in adjudicating the criminal case and if directions for disposal are appropriate.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Common Cause vs. Union of IndiaExplained¶6
Common Cause vs. Union of India, 1996 UPCrR 489
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
State Of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
