Disposed

Chetan @ Golu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Allahabad HC25 Feb 2019A482/4184/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 CrPC application quashing a charge sheet in a serious offences case, the court dismissed the petition on merits as the applicant withdrew the claim. However, the court issued directions to subordinate courts to dispose of bail applications within one week and conclude sessions trials within two years to ensure speedy justice.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for quashing dismissed; applicant given 30 days for surrender; directions issued to lower courts for speedy disposal of bail and trial.

Chetan @ Golu Vs State of U.P. and Anr. — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4184 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Chetan @ Golu Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Anr Counsel for Applicant :- Satya Prakash Singh,Bajrang Bahadur Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶6

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicant is to quash the charge sheet dated 23.09.2018 in Special Case No. 549 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 196/2018, u/s 363, 376 IPC and 3/4 POCSO Act, P.S. Rabupura, District Gautam Budh Nagar pending in the court of Additional District Judge, Ist, Gautam Budh Nahar.

¶7

Submission made by the counsel for the applicant that compromise has been arrived at between the parties. Since the nature and gravity of the offence is too severe and related to section 376 IPC, the ration laid down in the case of NARENDRA SINGH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS 2014 (6) SCC 466 , GIAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB 2012 (10) SCC 303 and the latest judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1723/2017 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 9549/2016, the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of DPARBATBHAI AAHIR @ PARBATBHAI BHIMSINHBHAI KARMUR AND OTHERS. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER , decided on 4th October, 2017, Hon'ble Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud J. delivering the judgment on behalf of the Full Bench has summarized the broad principles with regard to exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the case of compromise/settlement between the parties.

¶8

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since learned counsel for the applicant has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the applicant surrenders within 30 days before the court and if his bail application is filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-

¶9

"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases."

¶10

To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra) :

¶11

(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :

¶12

(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.

¶13

(iii).......................................................................................................;

¶14

(iv)......................................................................................................."

¶15

The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.

¶16

For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

¶17

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.

¶18

The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.

¶19

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.

¶20

In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.

¶21

If the applicant may file a discharge application before appropriate forum and the when the discharge application is filed, the same would be heard and decided by the court concerned expeditiously, strictly in accordance with law and law laid down in this regard within a period of 8 weeks by a well speaking and reasoned order.

¶22

With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Nisha

Chetan @ Golu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chetan @ Golu v. State of U.P. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dheer Pal @ Dheeraj Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Yashoda Devi Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Smt. Renu Dhakar Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Nihala Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Akhilesh Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dhooram Chaudhary Vs State of Up and Another