Surendra Prakash Vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Distt.-Hardoi and Another

¶1

Court No. - 27

¶2

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3794 of 2025

¶3

Petitioner :- Surendra Prakash Respondent :- Chief Judicial Magistrate Distt.-Hardoi And Another

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar,Prashant Shekhar,Rachna Shukla,Ramraj,Ravi Kant

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Tushar Jain and Shri Sudhanshu Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Arvind Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.G.A for the State.

¶7

The present writ petition has been preferred with the following main prayer:-

¶8

" Wherefore it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct:-

¶9

I. To issue an order or direction to the Opposite Party No.-1 to decide Complaint Case No.- 21716/2022 (Surendra Prakash Versus Chief Judicial Magistrate District- Hardoi and another) which is pending since 2022 before Chief Judicial Magistrate District- Hardoi within the stipulated time as is fixed by this Hon'ble Court, in the interest of justice."

¶10

Learned A.G.A has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition as the case is pending since the year 2022 and as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad versus State of U.P and others, the Five-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued direction that the High Court shall not fix any time frame for the disposal of the case or taking it out of turn. The relevant paragraph nos. 31 and 32 of the said judgment reported in 2024 are quoted hereinbelow:-

¶11

"31. The situation in Trial and district Courts is even worse. In 2002, in the case ofAll India Judges' Association & Ors v Union of India & Ors, 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 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 (2002) 4 SCC 247

¶12

(2017) 3 SCC 658 309, 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 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.

¶13

32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a timebound 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."

¶14

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that liberty may be given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for early disposal of the case.

¶15

Learned A.G.A has no objection to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with liberty to move an appropriate application before the court below, who may pass an appropriate order.

¶17

Order Date :- 1.7.2025 DiVYa

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Surendra Prakash v. Chief Judicial Magistrate Distt.-Hardoi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Prakash v. Chief Judicial Magistrate Distt.-Hardoi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Variyam Singh Sandhu and 3 Others vs Sri Pawan Agrawal, Distt. Magistrate Balrampur and 2 Others

Mrs. Shraddha Tripathi and Another vs Sri. Vishak G Iyer, Distt. Magistrate Distt. Lko.

Mrs. Anju Mishra and Another vs Shri. Vishak G Iyer, Distt. Magistrate Distt. Lko.

Smt. Disha vs Sri Vijay Pratap Singh Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari Hardoi

Subhash vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others

Subhash Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 5 Others