Disposed

Anju Katiyar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC11 Oct 2023A482/37625/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anju Katiyar filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for an expeditious trial of her corruption case, noting a delay of over three years. The Hon'ble Court rejected the State's opposition, recognized the right to speedy trial, and directed the trial court to conclude the case within six months.

What did the court decide?

Directed the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months if there is no legal impediment.

Anju Katiyar Vs State of U.P. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:196977

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 37625 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Anju Katiyar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Upendra Kumar Singh,Raksha Chauhan Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.

¶6

This application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. has been filed with the prayer to direct the Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Special Court No, 3, Varanasi to decide the Special Trial No. 07 of 2019; State Versus Anju Katiyar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 172/2019, under Sections-406, 409, 420, 120-B, 201 I. P. C. and Sections-7/8/13 (1), 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police StationCholapur, district-Varanasi, as expeditiously, as possible within a stipulated period of time.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A. G. A. for the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the said case the applicant was granted bail by this Court vide order dated 7.2.2020 and the trial Court was directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of the order. Learned counsel further submits that despite the direction of this Court, trial has not been concluded so far, whereas, the period of more than three years have passed. It was also pointed out that due to the pendency of this case, neither the suspension of the applicant could be revoked nor she has been promoted. In view of aforesaid facts,

¶9

the trial Court may be directed to proceed with the trial on day to day basis and conclude the same at the earliest.

¶10

Learned AGA has opposed the application and submitted that the trial court is not bound to conclude the proceedings of trial within the time stipulated by this court, however, the trial court may endeavour to decide the case expeditiously. It is further submitted that in the instant matter, no case for issuing direction for expeditious trial of the case is made out.

¶11

I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

¶12

It is surprising that the prayer of expeditious trial is being opposed by the State. Right to expeditious trial has been recognized as fundamental right by the Apex Court. Even the State is under obligation to make endeavour for speedy disposal of cases. The State cannot take a stand like a private party. Thus, the objection raised by the learned AGA is wholly misplaced and rejected.

¶13

In view of the aforesaid facts this application under section 482 CrPC is disposed of with the direction to the trial court to expedite the trial of the aforementioned case and to make every endeavour to conclude the same within a period of six month, if there is no legal impediment.

¶14

Order Date :- 11.10.2023

¶15

¶16

Digitally signed by :- HEMANT RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anju Katiyar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Katiyar v. State of U.P.

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

Wazid Vs State of U.P.

Yash Kumar Verma Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohit Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kunwar Pal Kardam Vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Ifzal @ Mohd. Afzal Vs State of U.P.

Sunil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another