Application under Section 483 CrPC for directions to expedite a Sessions trial dismissed. The Court held that there was no inordinate delay and no exceptional ground existed for interfering with the trial court's progress.
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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:149980
Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 1427 of 2024
Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kamal Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Applicant-Complainant has filed this application under Section 483 Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial proceedings of Sessions Trial No. 858 of 2023; titled State vs. Dinesh Kumar and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 341 of 2017, under Sections 304 IPC, Police Station Kareli, District Prayagraj, in a stipulated period.
After committal of the case to the Court of Sessions, the charges against the accused were framed on 25th July, 2023. In all there are ten prosecution witnesses and the prosecution is in the process of discharging the onus.
Since, it is not a case of inordinate delay in conclusion of trial, therefore, no exceptional ground is made out for issuing the directions for expeditious disposal of the subject case.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2024 Brijesh
Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue directions to the trial court to expeditiously conclude the trial proceedings?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Prateek Kumar Srivastava
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
