In an application under Section 483 CrPC, Mohd Asad sought directions to expedite a cheque dishonour trial. The court dismissed the application, finding no grounds for expediting disposal due to delays caused by lawyer absence and admitted adjournments.
No directions for expediting dismissal or trial disposal granted.
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:158208
Court No. - 81
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 917 of 2024
Applicant :- Mohd Asad Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Hanuman Prasad Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J.
Mohd Asad-Applicant has approached this Court through this application under Section 483 Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate 18, Allahabad to expedite and conclude the proceedings of Complaint Case No. 108 of 2022, titled Mohd Asad Vs. Sandeep Kumar, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Police Station Colonelganj, District Prayagraj, in a stipulated period.
Pursuant to the summoning order dated 05.05.2022, the accused was extended the concession of regular bail on 12th October, 2022. That apart on numerous occasions the case was adjourned as the lawyers had abstained from work.
Resultantly, no case is made out for issuing any directions for expeditious disposal of the trial.
The application fails and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2024 #Vik/-
Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should issue directions for expeditious disposal of the trial given the delays caused by adjournments and lawyer absence.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mohd Asad
State of U.P.
Manoj Bajaj
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
