Dismissed

Sonvarsi Devi v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023A482/2621/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking directions to expedite a trial, the Court held no specific reasons existed for such intervention. The applicant was permitted to file an expediting application before the trial court instead. The present application was dismissed with this direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction was not granted; applicant directed to file an expediting application before the trial court.

Sonvarsi Devi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 2621 of 2023 Applicant :- Sonvarsi Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 8 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶3

List revised.

¶4

Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Sonvarsi Devi with the prayer to allow this application and direct the Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Fast Track Court-II, Ballia to decide the Case No. 1373 of 2020 (Sonvarsi Devi Vs. Jitendra Chauhan and others), under Section 498-A IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Gadwar, District Ballia, expeditiously within a period of time to be stipulated.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the complainant of the present case. It is further argued that the trial is lingering on just because of non co-operation of the accused person and, as such, appropriate direction be issued for disposal of trial in time bound manner.

¶7

Per contra, learned State counsel opposed the prayer made in the present matter by arguing that no such specific reasons have been made out for giving any direction for expediting the trial of the case and as such the application be dismissed.

¶8

After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is evident that there is no specific reason for expediting the same. However, the applicant is the complainant may file an application for expediting the trial before the court concerned within two weeks from today which may as per its load of work, diary and pendency of cases, pass appropriate orders on the same within two weeks.

¶9

It is made clear that this Court has not passed any direction for expediting the trial.

¶10

The present application is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 / M. ARIF

¶12

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶13

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sonvarsi Devi v. State of U.P. and 8 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonvarsi Devi v. State of U.P. and 8 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

Abhishek Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

State of U.P. Vs Ashok Kumar

Md. Kamran Vs State of U.P. . and Another

Dilshad Khan and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shitu @ Shitu Ali Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vinod Kumar Sahu Vs State of U.P. and Another