Disposed

Smt. Arefin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2022A482/9419/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 CrPC, the applicant sought directions to conclude her pending trial expeditiously. The High Court noted the delay since FIR registration and the difficulty for the female informant to attend court, directing the trial court to conclude proceedings under Section 309 CrPC within one year.

What did the court decide?

Trial court directed to conclude trial under Section 309 CrPC within one year without unnecessary adjournments.

Smt. Arefin Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 84

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 9419 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Smt. Arefin Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Sameer Jain,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Amit Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arvind Kumar, learned AGA for the State and perused the record of the case.

¶6

By way of present application, applicant made a prayer to direct the trial court to conclude the trial of Case No. 12368 of 2018 arising out of Case Crime No. 104 of 2018, under Sections 498A, 323, 354 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Kundarki, District Moradabad within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that applicant is the informant and she lodged the FIR of the present case in the year 2018 and after investigation charge-sheet was also submitted in the year 2018 and since then trial is still pending. He further submitted that although charges have already been framed on 03.04.2021 but till date only the testimony of PW-1 could be recorded, therefore, it is necessary for the trial court to give direction to expedite the proceedings and conclude the same without unnecessary delay as, applicant, the informant is lady and it is difficult for her to do pairvi of the case.

¶8

Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer but could not dispute the fact that applicant, the informant, is lady and trial is pending since 2018 and charges were framed in the month of April, 2021 and after that although more than a year has been passed but only the testimony of PW-1 could be recorded and he is having no objection if such direction is given to the trial court.

¶9

I have heard both the parties and perused the record of the case. Record of the case shows that applicant, who is lady, lodged FIR of the present case in the year 2018 and after investigation in the year 2008 charge-sheet of the present case was filed and after that trial commenced and in the month of April, 2021 charges were framed but till date testimony of PW-1 could only be recorded by the trial court. As, applicant is lady and it is difficult for her to do pairvi of the case, therefore, trial court is directed to conclude the trial of the case as expeditious as

¶10

possible strictly under the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.

¶11

With these direction/observation, the present application stands disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 14.7.2022 AK Pandey

¶13

Digitally signed by ANUPAM KUMAR PANDEY Date: 2022.07.18 10:35:49 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Arefin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Arefin v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Tahir Vs State of U.P and Another

Rajesh Dutta Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kiran Vs State of U.P and Another

Sharanveer Alias Kallu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Radhey Shyam Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjay Singh and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another