Disposed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024A482/17053/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 482 CrPC seeking a time-bound direction for the disposal of a criminal case pending for over 18 years. Counsel for applicant cited delay and lack of progress. Opposition relied on Supreme Court precedent discouraging time limits except in exceptional circumstances. No direction granted; Advocate General instructed to obtain instructions.

What did the court decide?

No time-bound direction granted; applicant advised to elaborate exceptional circumstances via affidavit for fresh hearing.

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 77

¶2

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 17053 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Raj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jay Prakash Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State/opposite party-1.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Applicant Raj Kumar, who is a charge sheeted accused has approached this Court by means of present application under section 482 Cr.P.C. for a direction to Court concerned i.e. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court No.5, Ghaziabad to decide Criminal Case No. 280 of 2014 (State Vs. Raj umar and Others), under sections 147, 149, 332, 353, 504 IPC, Police Station- Sahibabad, District- Ghaziabad, on day to day basis or within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶8

At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. has raised a preliminary objection by submitting that prayer prayed for by means of present application cannot be granted, in view of the law laid down by five Judges Bench of Suprme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, wherein following has been observed in paragraphs 41 and 42:

¶9

41. Apart from dealing with huge arrears, our trial courts face the challenge of dealing with a large number of cases made time-bound by our constitutional courts. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the constitutional courts should not exercise the power to direct the disposal of a case before any District or trial court within a time span. In many cases, while rejecting a bail petition, a time-limit is fixed for disposal of trial on the ground that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a long time without realising that the trial court concerned may have many pending cases where the accused are in jail for a longer period. The same logic will apply to the cases pending before the High Courts. When we exercise such power of directing High Courts to decide cases in a timebound manner, we are not aware of the exact position of pendency of old cases in the said courts, which require priority to be given. Bail petitions remain pending for a long time. There are appeals against conviction pending where the appellants have been denied bail.

¶10

42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

¶11

Referring to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the learned A.G.A. submits that the same runs into as many as 21 paragraphs. However, in none of the paragaraphs an attempt has been made to point out any such exceptional circumstance necessitating inference by this Court. On the above, premise the learned A.G.A. thus submits that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application.

¶12

When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to the averments made in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit. For ready reference, the paragraphs 10 and 11 of the affidavit are reproduced herein under:

¶13

"10. That it is relevant to mention here that more that 18 years has been lapsed from the submitted the charge-sheet but till date trial was very poor stage because even the first informant has not examined to till date.

¶14

11. That out of 11 witnesses of the prosecution case mentioned in chargesheet till date trial court no single witnesses was examined. A true copy of complete order-sheet is being filed herewith and marked as Annexure No.4 to this affidavit."

¶15

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that inspite of the fact that a period of more than 18 years has rolled by, the trial of applicant has not yet concluded. Referring to the judgement of Supreme Court in A. R. Antulay Vs. R. S. Nayak (1992) 1 SCC 225, it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant, that right to speedy trial is now recognized as a fundamental right of an accused. With reference to above, it is thus urged that applicant cannot be held responsible for the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution in pursuing the trial.

¶16

Learned A.G.A. is directed to obtain instructions in the matter.

¶17

Put up again as fresh on 9.9.2024.

¶18

Order Date :- 2.9.2024 Arshad

¶19

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

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Dharmawati Devi Alias Munni Devi and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Prince vs State of U.P. and Another

Rahul Modanwal and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Wamish and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Sarvan Kumar vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Bhim Singh vs State of U.P. and Another