Dismissed

Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Feb 2023A482/4125/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the applicant sought directions to expedite a pending Section 138 N.I. Act case. The Court declined to issue directions but directed the applicant to file an expediting application before the concerned trial court.

What did the court decide?

Application dismissed; applicant directed to file expediting application with trial court within two weeks.

Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 69 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 4125 of 2023 Applicant :- Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi,Vipul Kumar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶2

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶3

List revised.

¶4

Heard Sri Brajesh Kumar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the applicant, Ms. Arti Agarwal, learned counsel for the State and perused the record.

¶5

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey with the prayer to direct the learned trial Court to expedite the Case No. 3751 of 2018 (Sarbajeet Pandey Vs. Siyaram Upadhyay), under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Kotwali, District Ballia, pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ballia within stipulated period.

¶6

Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant is the complainant. 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 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 :- 22.2.2023 / M. ARIF .(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶12

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

Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarbajeet Kumar Pandey 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

Ram Bharose Vs State

Jishan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Kapil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahees Khan @ Patela and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sheela Devi Vs State of U.P. and Another

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