Dismissed

Ram Prasad and 2 Others v. Central Bureau of Nvestigation

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024A483/1448/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. sought direction to expedite trial proceedings pending since 2022. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that courts generally should not fix time limits unless an exceptional case is made out, noting no such grounds were established and citing non-cooperation of accused.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. to expedite trial proceedings dismissed.

Ram Prasad and 2 Others vs Central Bureau… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:151801

¶2

Court No. - 64

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 1448 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ram Prasad And 2 Others Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Nvestigation Counsel for Applicant :- Om Narayan Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Om Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate / Deputy Solicitor General assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the records.

¶7

The present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants- Ram Prasad, Dinanath and Net Ram, with the prayer to allow this application and direct the learned Special Judicial Magistrate, C.B.I., Ghaziabad to expedite the proceedings of trial of Case No. 04 of 2022 (C.B.I. Vs. Chandan Bose and others), under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 332, 333, 353, 436, 187, 188 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1932, Police Station C.B.I., Delhi, arising out of F.I.R. No. RC02(S)/2017/CBI/SC-III, New Delhi dated 20.03.2017 and conclude / decide the same within stipulated time as directed by this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants are the accused in the present matter. It is submitted that the only prayer in the present petition is to direct the trial court concerned to expedite the trial and conclude it within a stipulated period of time. It is submitted that trial is pending since 2022 and till date charge has also not been framed. Learned counsel has placed before the Court the order-sheet of the trial court from 06.12.2022 to 12.07.2024 to show that the trial is not proceeding.

¶9

Learned counsel for the C.B.I. vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that the trial is pending only because of the reason that the accused are not co-operating with the trial court and one or the other accused are absenting themselves. It is submitted that in the present matter there are 96 accused persons but only 03 of them have approached this Court and even the other accused have

¶10

not been made necessary party in the present petition. It is submitted that law on the subject is trite that Courts should not generally fix time frame for the trial court. It is submitted that there is no specific reason or ground shown in the present application to grant prayer as prayed for. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. has relied upon an order of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 01.07.2024 passed in Application U/S 482 No. 1138 of 2024 (Dinesh Chaudhary vs. State of U.P. and another), the copy of the said order has been placed before the Court which is taken on record.

¶11

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants being 03 in number are accused along with 93 other accused in the matter. The other accused persons are not party in the present petition. There is a prayer for direction to trial court to decide the trial in a time bound manner. A Full Bench of the Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207 has observed in paragraph 41 that the Courts should not generally fix time limit for disposal of cases and it should be done only in exceptional case. There is no exceptional case and ground made out in the present petition.

¶12

The present application u/s 483 Cr.P.C. is dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 18.9.2024 AS Rathore

¶14

(Samit Gopal,J.)

¶15

Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK SINGH RATHOR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ram Prasad and 2 Others v. Central Bureau of Nvestigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Prasad and 2 Others v. Central Bureau of Nvestigation

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

Sujoy Sarkar vs State of U.P. and Another

Anil Shukla vs State of U.P.

Rajeev Kumar and 5 Others vs State of Up and Another

Subhan Ali vs Union of India and 2 Others

Dr Satish vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohammad Shahid vs State of U.P.