Disposed

Poonam Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC4 Apr 2023A482/8291/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order in an application under Section 482 CrPC for expediting a stale trial. The Court directed the lower court to fix two hearing dates weekly and conclude the trial within four months, directing counsel to ignore Bar resolutions if necessary.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Trial Court to fix two hearing dates weekly and conclude the trial within four months of this order.

Poonam Mishra Vs State of U.P. and Another — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 64

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8291 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Poonam Mishra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Pandey,Kameshwar Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶5

This application has been filed seeking to expedite and conclude the trial of Case No. 265 of 2012, Poonam Mishra vs. Alok Kumar and others, under Sections 420, 18, 468, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Pannuganj, District Sonbhadra, pending before the Chief udicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra.

¶6

Heard learned Counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. appearing on behalf of the State.

¶7

Perused the report submitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra in compliance with the order dated 27.03.2023. The relevant part of the report dated 03.04.2023 reads:

¶8

"ननिववेदनि हहै नकि पቚኋरቕኍ किवे सम्ቌ ननियत नतथरयोሱ पर नकिससी प्ቌकिቚኋर किवे उपससरत नि हहोनिवे किवे किቚኋरण पकिरण मम नवथधिनिनुसቚኋर गनुण-दहोष पर आदवेश पቚኋररत निहीሻ नकियቚኋ जቚኋ सकिቚኋ हहै। पቚኋरቕኍ दቚኋरቚኋ पपूवर मम मቚኋनिनिसीय न्यቚኋयቚኋलय किवे सम्ቌ पसतनुत आख्यቚኋ नदनिቚኋाሪनकित 25.03.2023 सवे पቚኋरቕኍ किक ऐससी किहोई माሪशቚኋ निहीሻ रहसी हहै नकि वह पकिरण किवे ननिसतቚኋरण किक अपनिसी थजम्मवेदቚኋरसी सवे पसीछवे हट रहቚኋ हहै। पकिरण मम अब तकि पቚኋरቕኍ किवे दቚኋरቚኋ किहोई आदवेश इससी किቚኋरण पቚኋररत निहीሻ नकियቚኋ गयቚኋ क्योሱनकि पቚኋरቕኍ किवे न्यቚኋयቚኋलय किवे सम्ቌ वቚኋनदनिसी मनुकिदमቚኋ अरवቚኋ अनभियनु्ሹगण बल दवेनिवे किवे थलए उपससरत निहीሻ आयवे। पቚኋरቕኍ किवे न्यቚኋयቚኋलय मम वतरमቚኋनि मम लगभिग 19,000 मनुकिदमवे लसम्बत हहै और नदनि-पनतनदनि लगभिग 250-300 दቚኋसणቄኌकि वቚኋदोሱ किक पतቚኋवथलयቚኋाሪ ननियत हहोतसी हह। किቚኋयर किक अथधिकितቚኋ किवे किቚኋरण पनतनदनि पत्यवेकि ऐससी पतቚኋवथलयोሱ किቚኋ नवसत त ृ अवलहोकिनि किरनिቚኋ अत्याሪत किनठिनि हहोतቚኋ हहै थजसमम बल दवेनिवे किवे थलए किहोई प्ቌकिቚኋर उपससरत निहीሻ हहै। उपरहो्ሹ पकिरण मम प्ቌकिቚኋरोሱ किक उपससरनत न्यቚኋयቚኋलय किवे सम्ቌ किभिसी नि हहोनिवे किवे किቚኋरण पቚኋरቕኍ किवे दቚኋरቚኋ पतቚኋवलसी किቚኋ गनुण - दहोष पर ननिसतቚኋरण निहीሻ नकियቚኋ जቚኋ सकिቚኋ हहै। पቚኋरቕኍ किवे दቚኋरቚኋ जቚኋनिबपूझकिर पकिरण किवे ननिसतቚኋरण मम किहोई लቚኋपरवቚኋहसी दनशरत निहीሻ किक गयसी हहै। अब तकि पतቚኋवलसी मम नवथधिनिनुसቚኋर गनुण-दहोष पर आदवेश पቚኋररत नि हहो पቚኋनिवे किवे थलए पቚኋरቕኍ मቚኋनिनिसीय न्यቚኋयቚኋलय किवे सम्ቌ्ቌ मቚኋ यቚኋचनिቚኋ किरतቚኋ हहै।

¶9

मቚኋनिनिसीय न्यቚኋयቚኋलय सवे यह ननिववेदनि हहै नकि दቚኋसणቄኌकि वቚኋद साሪ 0-265 / 2012, पपूनिम नमशቚኋ बनिቚኋम आलहोकि किनुमቚኋर व अन्य मम अनቇኌम ननियत नतथर नदनिቚኋाሪकि 03.05. 2023 किहो पकिरण किቚኋ गनुण-दहोष पर नवथधिनिनुसቚኋर ननिसतቚኋरण किरनिवे किቚኋ यरቚኋसाሪभिव पयቚኋस नकियቚኋ जቚኋववेगቚኋ। इस साሪबाሪधि मम पቚኋरቕኍ किवे न्यቚኋयቚኋलय सवे उभिय प्ቌोሱ किहो ननियत नतथर नदनिቚኋाሪकि 03.05.2023 किहो न्यቚኋयቚኋलय किवे सम्ቌ स न ुवቚኋई हवेतनु उपससरत हहोनिवे बቚኋबत पतृरकि सवे निहोनटस जቚኋरसी नकियቚኋ जቚኋ रहቚኋ हहै।"

¶10

The case here being one of the year 2012, it is clearly 10 years old and the applicant's anxiety for an end to the trial is understandable. The applicant is the complainant, who is prosecuting opposite party No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 420, 418, 468, 120B IPC.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the applicant states that earlier Mr. Prabhakar Pathak, Advocate was appearing on the applicant's behalf, but for some reason, he did not inform the applicant of certain dates fixed before the learned Magistrate. Now, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh, Advocate appears in this cause on behalf of the applicant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶12

In the circumstances of the case, it is directed that trial of this case shall proceed now in the manner that two dates of effective hearing shall be fixed every week and on each of those dates, Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh as well as the learned Counsel appearing for the complainant and the State shall all remain present and assist the Court. The learned Counsel appearing in this case will appear and assist the Court notwithstanding any resolution of the Bar that they are members of, asking them to abstain from professional duties. The learned Counsel appearing in this case shall assist the Court and ignore any direction of the Bar, asking them to abstain from judicial work.

¶13

The Trial Court shall proceed with the trial in the manner indicated above and conclude the same within four months of the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶14

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonbhadra through the learned Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra by the Registrar (Compliance) within 48 hours .

¶15

The application is, accordingly, disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Anoop

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANOOP KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Poonam Mishra v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poonam Mishra 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jaishree @ Mantu Vs State of U.P. and Another

Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrawan @ Shrawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Shrenik Dheerajmal Siroya, Partner Siroya Developers Vs State of U.P. and Another

Het Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ashish Emmanwel Vs State of U.P. and Another