Gopal Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:71342

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 1970 of 2025

Applicant :- Gopal Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwini Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Ashwini Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned AGA for State-opposite party-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

Applicant- Gopal Srivastava, who is first informant has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned Court below to decide the Criminal Case No. CNR No. UPVR01001461/2022 (State Vs. Jeetu Sonker @ Amit and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 516/2021 under Sections 302, 34 I.P.C., Police Station-Sigra, District-Varanasi., pending before the Court of learned Anti Corruption Court No. 4, Varanasi, otherwise the applicant will suffer an irreparable loss and injury.

¶10

And or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶11

Record shows that in respect of an incident which is alleged to have been occurred on 04.11.2021, a delayed FIR dated 05.12.2021 was lodged by first informant/applicant Gopal Srivastava which was registered as Case Crime No.516 of 2021 under Section 34/302 IPC, Police Station Sigra, (Commissionerate Varanasi), District Varanasi. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons namely Devesh, Sachin, Jeetu and Satish Pal were nominated as named accused.

¶12

Subsequent to the aforesaid FIR investigating officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of chapter XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that offence complained of is duly established. Accordingly, investigating officer submitted the charge-sheet/police report dated 05.06.2022 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. By means of aforesaid police report, four persons namely Devesh, Sachin, Jeetu and Satish Pal i.e. opposite parties 2, 3, 4 and 5 herein were charge-sheeted under Section 302/34 IPC.

¶13

After submission of aforesaid charge-sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by jurisdictional Magistrate vide cognizance taking order dated 17.01.2022 passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions vide committal order dated 15.07.2023. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No.212/22 (State Vs. Jeetu Sonker @ Amit & Others) came to be registered in the Court of Sessions Judge, Varanasi. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial and he framed charges against charge-sheeted accused vide framing of charge order dated 09.08.2023.

¶14

Learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial of accused opposite parties 2, 3, 4 and 5 is of the year 2022 i.e. 15.02.2022. However even though a period of more than 3 years and 2 months has expired only the deposition of PW-1 has been recorded. The examination-in-chief of PW-2 is in progress as such the trial is not proceeding at the required pace but at a snail's pace. In view of above, there is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near

¶15

future. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that interest of justice shall be served in case a direction is issued by this Court to court concerned to proceed with aforementioned trial with all expedition, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, by granting stay/exemption to the accused opposite parties 2, 3, 4, and 5 not in a routine manner but in exceptional circumstance, by taking all such measures as are available under the Code i.e. Cr.P.C. for summoning of witness and preferably conclude the trial within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶16

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. submits that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207 , (paragraphs 41 and 42) no direction for time bound disposal of aforementioned Sessions Trial can be issued by this Court. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. that the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself carved out an exception that Constitutional Courts can direct for time bound disposal of a criminal case provided the circumstances are exceptional. Referring to the order sheet of above-mentioned Sessions Trial particularly at page-72 of the paper book the learned A.G.A. submits that on account of non-appearance of PW-2 before court below non-bailable warrant has been issued against PW-2. He therefore submits that in view of the lackadaisical approach of the prosecution itself in pursuing the trial no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the learned A.G.A. contends that no such exceptional circumstance has emerged on record warranting interference by this Court. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that present application

¶17

is liable to be dismissed.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record, but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record. The trial is of the year 2022 and the charges were framed against accused vide framing of charge order dated 09.08.2023. As such no substantial period has expired since then. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.

¶19

As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

It is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶21

Order Date :- 5.5.2025 R.S. Tiwari

¶22

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Gopal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopal Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

Shashi Verma Alias Shashi vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanju vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Junid Khan vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Raj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another