Disposed

Om Prakash Verma v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Allahabad HC3 May 2024A227/2203/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 227 seeking time-bound disposal of a criminal case, the Allahabad High Court dispensed with notice to the absent accused and directed the trial court to secure his presence and expedite the trial with utmost caution.

What did the court decide?

Dispensed with notice to respondent no.2; directed trial court to secure presence of accused and dispose of the case with utmost expedition.

Om Prakash Verma vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:34458

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2203 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Om Prakash Verma Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shreesh Shukla,Yash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Mohd. Faiz Alam Khan,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶7

The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the complainant/petitioner, namely, Om Prakash Verma with the following prayers:-

¶8

"(i) Issue an order or direction, that the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.29, Sultanpur may be directed to dispose of the Case No. 765/15 (Om Prakash vs. Chandrapal Yadav) pending before it expeditiously within a fixed time frame, as may be deemed fit and appropriate by this Hon'ble Court.

¶9

(ii) Any other order or direction ................................................ .........."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite the complaint case pending before the trial court was filed in the year 2015 still the presence of the accused person has not been secured by the trial court and only bailable warrants of Rs. 10,000/- has been issued.

¶11

It is requested that appropriate directions be given to the trial court to conclude the trial within the time stipulated by this Court.

¶12

Learned A.G.A., however, submits that for the last many dates the petitioner is also not appearing before the trial court and since the presence of the accused person/opposite party no.2 has not yet been secured before the trial court, any order with regard to the time bound disposal of the case may not be complied by the trial court.

¶13

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

¶14

perused the record and keeping in view the order intended to be passed the issuance of notice of the instant proceedings to the respondent no.2 is hereby dispensed with and keeping an eye that still the presence of the respondent no.2/accused person has not been secured before the trial court, the instant petition filed by the petitioner/complainant is finally disposed of with the direction to the trial court to make all out of permissible efforts/endeavours to secure the presence of the accused person/respondent no.2 before it and thereafter to proceed to dispose of the above mentioned case with utmost expedition, after providing an opportunity of being heard to the parties, strictly in accordance with law, if there is no legal impediment.

¶15

Order Date :- 3.5.2024 Praveen

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Prakash Verma v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash Verma v. the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohammad Ashhad Vs State of Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 3 Others

Puran Lal Vs Union of India Thru. N.C.B Lko

Shaukat Shekh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko.

Om Prakash Verma Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin.Secy. Home and Another

Kallu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Alok Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.