Disposed

Smt. Shashi Trivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC25 Mar 2019A482/7233/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking quashment of charges and proceedings in a domestic violence case, the single judge disposed of the matter by directing the lower court. The Court ordered interim non-coercive action for thirty days and mandated the filing and disposal of bail applications within seven days, citing Supreme Court guidelines on speedy trials and special provisions for elde

What did the court decide?

Interim non-coercive action for 30 days; direction to lower court to dispose of bail application within seven days; order for quashment withdrawn.

Smt. Shashi Trivedi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 67

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 7233 of 2019

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Shashi Trivedi And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

¶5

Supplementary affidavit filed by learned counsel for the applicants today in the Court is taken on record.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

¶7

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicants is to quash the charge sheet dated 01.09.2018, cognizance order dated 24.10.2018 and proceeding of Criminal Case No.1768 of 2018(State Vs. Anurag Trivedi and others) arising out of case crime no.158 of 2018 under Sections 498A, 323, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station-Sadar Bazar, District-Shajahanpur pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, Ist, Shajahanpur.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the present application has been filed by parent-in-laws of opposite party no.2. On making an enquiry about the whereabouts of their son(husband of opposite party no.2), learned counsel for the applicants has drawn the attention of the Court to paragraph no.2 to the supplementary affidavit in which it has been stated that the applicants are living separately from their son and opposite party no.2. The parent-in-law have excluded this that they are named accused persons and the charge sheet was submitted against them.

¶9

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (in a given case, it is discretion of the court concerned) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the applicants surrender 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 :-

¶10

"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are

¶11

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."

¶12

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) :

¶13

(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week : (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. (iii).......................................................................................................; (iv)......................................................................................................."

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

After the conclusion of argument it has been pointed out by learned counsel for the applicants, that the applicants are parent-in-laws and old age, therefore, some special provision shall be made for them.

¶21

It goes without saying that the Code of Criminal Procedure has already contained special provision under section 437 (i) (ii) first proviso to consider the bail application of such persons i.e. under 16 years of age or a woman or is sick or infirm persons and under the circumstances, no further direction is required in this regard for the consideration of bail for these applicants who are parent-in-laws.

¶22

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

¶23

Order Date :- 25.3.2019 Sumit S

Smt. Shashi Trivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Shashi Trivedi and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Lal Singh and 2 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Praveen Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

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

Charan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Anr.

Anurag Yadav (Air Force Employee) Vs State of U.P. and another

Smt. Nisha Katiyar and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Anr.