Dismissed

Mansha Devi v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Allahabad HC30 Jan 2023A482/38000/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Section 482 application seeking expedited disposal of a criminal trial pending for over a decade, the High Court upheld dismissal. The trial court cited inability to proceed due to missing records from the District Magistrate's office despite prosecution requests.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed as misconceived given the existence of a legal impediment due to pending production of records by the District Magistrate.

Mansha Devi Vs State of U.P and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Court No. - 66

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38000 of 2022

¶3

Applicant :- Mansha Devi Opposite Party :- State Of U.P And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Anuj Prajapati Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr.R.A. Prajapati, learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

This application under section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by first informant/applicant for a direction to Court below i.e. Judidicial Magistrate, Mau to decide Criminal Case No.. 2622 of 2017 (State Vs. Ramu and Others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1130 of 2010, under Sections 419/420/467, 468, 470, 471 IPC, Police Station- Ranipur, District Mau within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶7

Present application came up for admission on 21.11.2022 and this Court passed the following order:

¶8

"Learned counsel for the applicant is present.

¶9

State is represented through learned AGA.

¶10

It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant earlier filed an application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No.12227 of 2018 for expeditious disposal of the criminal case and this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-

¶11

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

¶12

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Court below to decide the trial of Criminal Case No. 699 of 2011 (State Vs. Ramu and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 1130 of 2010, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 470, 471 IPC, Police Station Ranipur, District Mau, pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mau.

¶13

Considering the fact that the trial has remained pending for very long and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed of with a direction to the court below to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one year from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no other legal impediment. "

¶14

Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that despite the aforesaid direction, the learned trial court has failed to disposed of the criminal trial. Let an explanation be called from the trial court that under what circumstances, the order dated 12.04.2018 cold not be complied and what efforts have been made by it to ensure the compliance of the order dated 12.04.2018.

¶15

The explanation be submitted through concerned sessions court before the next date fixed.

¶16

Put up this case on 14.12.2022 as fresh. "

¶17

Pursuant to above, order dated 21.11.2022, concerned Judicial Officer/Judicial Magistrate, Mau has submitted his report dated 3.12.2022 to this Court. Perusal of the same goes to show that there are twelve witnesses nominated in the charge sheet. Out of which 10 have been examined. Now only two witnesses i.e. scribe of the F.I.R. and the Investigating Officer remained to examine. The report further indicates that during pendency of aforementioned criminal case an application was filed by prosecution for summoning certain record from record room of District Magistrate, Mau. Though the application filed by prosecution was allowed but the document desired to be produced have not yet been sent by record room, Collectrate, Mau

¶18

In view of above, the direction prayed for cannot be issued.

¶19

Application fails being misconceived at this stage.

¶20

It is accordingly dismissed.

¶21

Order Date :- 30.1.2023

¶22

Arshad

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ARSHAD MAHMOOD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mansha Devi v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mansha Devi v. State of U.P and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Rama Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ayaz and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P and Another

Smt. Aneeta Vs State of U.P and 3 Others

Raghvendra @ Dharmendra and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Taiyyab Ali and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another