Allowed

Smt. Virma Devi v. State of U.P.and Another

Allahabad HC24 May 2022A482/12214/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC sought direction to conclude a pending complaint case (Sections 498A IPC) where the complainant failed to appear. The High Court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously without adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to the trial court to conclude the proceedings expeditiously under Section 309 Cr.P.C. without unnecessary adjournments.

Smt. Virma Devi Vs State of U.P.and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 91

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12214 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Virma Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Ajay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Sushma Soni, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, the applicant, who is accused in the case, made prayer that a direction be issued to the trial court to conclude the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1778 of 2016, New Case No. 376 of 2021, under Sections 498A, 323 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Court No.5, Farrukhabad.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the accused in the complaint case and she is facing agony of criminal trial since 2016 and although she was summoned in the year 2016, but the trial of the complaint case could not be concluded till date. He further submitted that complainant of the case (opposite party no.2) is not appearing before the trial court and due to her absence trial of the case could not be proceeded further, therefore, a direction is required for the trial court to conclude the trial of the case as expeditious as possible within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA although opposed the prayer on the ground that applicant is the accused and there is no need at her instance to issue such direction, but learned AGA could not dispute the fact that trial of the complaint case is pending since the year 2016 and dates are being fixed due to absence of opposite party no.2, the complainant and she is having no objection if any such direction to the trial court is issued by this Court.

¶9

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Applicant is the accused of a complaint case and she was summoned in the year 2016 and almost more than five years have been passed, but till then proceedings of the complaint case could not be concluded by the trial court.

¶10

Order-sheet dated 29.11.2021 shows that opposite party no.2,

¶11

the complainant of the case, herself is not appearing before the Court. In view of the matter, the trial court is directed to conclude the proceeding of the case as expeditious as possible strictly under the provision of Section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶12

With these directions, the present application is disposed off. Order Date :- 24.5.2022 AK Pandey

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.05.29 14:05:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Virma Devi v. State of U.P.and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Virma Devi 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Kant Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheena Jindal Vs State of U.P.and 3 Others

Navi Hasan Vs State of U.P.and Another

Sobhi and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dharamveer Singh Gurjar Vs Alok Kumar Tyagi

Kaushal Kishor Vs State of U.P. and Another