The High Court directed the trial court to expedite a criminal trial involving sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, and D.P. Act, directing conclusion within six months to prevent delay.
Direction to the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude it within six months from the date of certified copy of the order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 71
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8501 of 2023
Applicant :- Shrutichaubey Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ugrasen Kumar Pandey,Ragini Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.
Heard Sri Ugrasen Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Gupta, learned A.G.A. appearing for the State and perused the record.
The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant-Shruti Chaubey with the prayer to direct to Civil Judge, (J.D.), Court No.3, District Varanasi to expedite in Case Crime No. 150 of 2013, under Sections 498-A, 323, 325, 504, 506 IPC, and 3/4 D. P. Act, , P.S. Lohta, District Varanasi (Shruti Chaubey Vs. Pankaj Chaubey and others) within stipulated period as fix by this Hon'ble Court.
Learned counsel for the applicant argued that initially vide order dated 14.1.2016 passed in Application U/S 482 No.833 of 2016 (Shruti Chaube Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, coordinate Bench of this Court directed the trial court to decide the matter expeditiously preferably within a period of eight months from the date of production of certified copy of the order, copy of the said order is annexed as annexure no.1 to the affidavit. It is argued that the said order was filed before the trial court after which the matter could not be decided and then the trial court sought permission from this Court for additional time for conclusion of the trial but even in spite of the same, the trial is not proceeding and is pending till date. The accused on one or the other pretext are getting the same adjourned easily without any justifiable reason. It is argued that till date only examination-in-chief of P.W.1 has been recorded and his cross-examination is pending. It is argued that as such appropriate orders be passed for the trial court to expedite the trial and conclude the same within the fixed period of time.
Learned counsel for the State has been heard.
After having heard learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the trial of the present case has already been expedited vide order dated 14.1.2016. The trial court is reminded of the said order and is further directed to expedite the
same and proceed it without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties and make an endeavour to conclude the same within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
The present application stands allowed.
(Samit Gopal, J.)
Order Date :- 14.3.2023 Gaurav
Digitally signed by :- GAURAV KULSHRESTHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court should be directed to expedite the pending criminal trial and conclude it within a stipulated time.
Whether unnecessary adjournments should be discouraged to accelerate the trial process.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shruti Chaubey
State Of U.P.
Pankaj Chaubey
Samit Gopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
