Disposed

Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2020A482/3138/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of a Section 482 Cr.P.C. application seeking directive to expedite a pending corruption trial. Rejecting an objection regarding the applicant's status as non-first informant, the court directed the Special Judge to conclude the trial within nine months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Act), Meerut to expedite the trial and conclude it within nine months from the date of the order.

Dhirendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3138 of 2020

¶3

Applicant :- Dhirendra Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Pramod Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajul Bhargava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Pramod Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶6

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant with the prayer to direct the Court below to expedite the Case No. 22 of 2011 (State vs. Santosh Kumar), arising out of Case Crime No.178 of 2010, under Sections 7/13 (1) D read with Section 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, P.S. Noida Sector-49, District Gautam Budh Nagar, pending in the court of Special Judge (Anti-Corruption Act), Meerut, within a stipulated period.

¶7

The present application has been filed for expediting the trial against opposite party no.2. The applicant is not the first informant, he has merely made a complaint against opposite party no.2 for demand of illegal gratification, whereas, trap was laid and opposite party no.2 was caught red-handed with the gratification amount.

¶8

Per contra, learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of present application stating that the applicant is not the first informant of the present case.

¶9

However, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sheo Nandan Paswan vs. State Of Bihar & Ors 1987 AIR 877 the concept of locus standi is foreign to criminal jurisprudence, however, in the present case the applicant is the person who had made complaint against opposite party no.2 who is serving as Sub-Inspector in Police. In my opinion, without entering into the preliminary objection raised by learned A.G.A. as the case is pending against opposite party no.2 since 2011, I deem it fit to direct the Special Judge (AntiCorruption Act), Meerut to expedite the aforesaid trial and conclude the same expeditiously strictly in accordance with law, preferably within a period of nine months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶10

With the aforesaid observations, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. application is finally disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 23.1.2020 Vikas

Dhirendra Singh v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhirendra Singh 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

Ved Prakash Sharma Vs State of U.P.

Himanshu Vs State of U.P.

Vishwajeet Singh @ Bisai Vs State of U.P.

Itrat Ali Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Pushkin Kumar Baliyan and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and Another