Dismissed

Smt Praveen v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024A483/1495/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This application under Section 483 CrPC sought directions for expeditious disposal of a domestic violence case. The single-judge bench rejected the prayer, relying on Supreme Court precedents stating that constitutional courts should not normally fix time-bound schedules as such matters are best left to trial courts.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for issuance of directions to expedite trial was dismissed.

Smt Praveen vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144749

¶2

Court No. - 81

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 1495 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Smt Praveen Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Pankaj Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.

¶6

Smt. Praveen-Applicant-Complainant has approached this Court through this application under Section 483 Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to the trial court to expedite and conclude the proceedings of Case No. 103 of 2013; titled Smt. Praveen vs. Amit Kumar Sarkar and others, under Section 12 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, Police Station, Civil Lines, District Etawah, in a stipulated period.

¶7

Learned counsel for applicant-complainant has submitted that subject case was filed by applicant on 25.06.2013, but the proceedings in the case are still pending adjudication and the trial is not making any headway. Learned counsel for applicant prays that in view of the nature of the offences, it would be in the interest of justice, if directions are issued to the trial court to decide the above mentioned case in a specific time frame.

¶8

Concededly, the orders adjourning the trial do not indicate any delay on the part of the accused and the trial proceedings are being adjourned on various grounds, therefore, no ground is made out for issuing the directions for expeditious disposal of the trial, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 13284-13289 of 2023 ,

¶9

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has specifically examined the issue of issuance of directions by the constitutional courts, to the trial courts for deciding the pending cases in a time bound manner and observed as under:-

¶10

" 31. The situation in Trial and district Courts is even worse. In 2002, in the case of All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247, this Court passed an order directing that the judge-to-population ratio within twenty years should be 50 per million. Even as of today, we are not able to reach the ratio of even 25 per million. The directions issued in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 658 have not been complied with by the States by increasing the Judge strength of the Trial and District Courts. The figures of pendency of cases in our trial Courts are staggering. There are different categories of cases which, by their very nature, are required to be given utmost priority, such as the cases of the accused in jail and the cases of senior citizens. For example, there are many legislations like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 etc which prescribe specific time limits for the disposal of cases. However, due to the huge filing and pendency, our Courts cannot conclude the trials within the time provided by the statutes. There is a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the form of Section 309, which requires criminal cases to be heard on a day-to-day basis once the recording of evidence commences. The same Section provides that in case of certain serious offences against women, the cases must be decided within two months of filing the charge sheet. Unfortunately, our Criminal Courts are not in a position to implement the said provision. 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 concerned trial Court may have many pending cases where the accused are in jail for a longer period. The same logic will apply to the cases pending

¶11

before the High Courts. When we exercise such power of directing High Courts to decide cases in a time-bound 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.

¶12

32. 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 concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.

¶13

33. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame…...xxxxxx….."

¶14

Resultantly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed.

¶15

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Brijesh

¶16

Digitally signed by :- BRIJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt Praveen v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Praveen v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rohit Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Rohit Saxena vs State of U.P. and Another

Bhanu Pratap Singh vs State of Up

Jyoti Shakya vs State of Up and 7 Others

Radheshyam vs State of Up

Seema Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others