Allowed

Bhagwat Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC18 Sept 2024A482/21536/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Sessions Judge, Varanasi, to decide a pending criminal revision with expedition within two months. The Court distinguished the Supreme Court's judgment in High Court Bar Association regarding time-bound disposal orders, holding that such injunctions do not apply when the High Court itself issues directions for expedited disposal of revisions challenging magistrate order

What did the court decide?

Direction to Sessions Judge, Varanasi to decide the criminal revision with all expedition within two months.

Bhagwat Sharan Yadav vs State of U.P. and 7 Others — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:152259

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 21536 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Bhagwat Sharan Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Sanjay Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant Bhagwat Sharan Yadav has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr. P. C. for a direction to the Sessions Judge, Varanasi to decide criminal revision no. 172 of 2022 (Bhagwant Saran Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another) arising out of order dated 2.4.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistratge, Varanasi in Misc. Case No. 1182 of 2020 (Bhagwant Saran Yadav Vs. Kailash Yadav) under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. Police Station Chaubeypur, District Varanasi.

¶9

Learned counsel for applicant submits that aforementioned criminal revision filed by applicant is pending since the year 2022. He, therefore, contends that interest of justice shall be served in case, a direction is issued by this Court to concerned Sessions Judge to decide aforementioned criminal revision (Bhagwant Saran Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and another) within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶10

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the present application. Referring to paragraphs 41 and 42 of the 5 Judges Bench judgement of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207, learned A.G.A. submits that direction as prayed for cannot be issued by this Court. For ready reference, paragraphs 41 and 42 of the aforementioned judgement are reproduced herein under:-

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that since revision has been filed challenging the order passed by the Jurisdictional Magistrate rejecting the application under Section 156 (3) Cr. P. C. filed by applicant, therefore, the injunction issued by the Apex Court as noted herein above shall not be applicable.

¶15

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as noted herein above, this application is disposed of finally with a direction to Sessions Judge, Varanasi to decide above mentioned criminal revision with all expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 HSM

¶17

Digitally signed by :- HARI SHANKER MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bhagwat Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhagwat Sharan Yadav v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

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

Similar cases

Pradeep Chauhan vs State of U.P. and Another

Irfan and 3 Others vs State of Up and ANOther

Praveen vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhola @ Nafisa Khan and Another vs State of Up and Another

Surendra Kumar and 3 Others vs State of Up ANOther

Deena Nath Nagar vs State of U.P. and Another