Smt Salma Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Court No. - 71

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 38443 of 2024

Applicant :- Smt Salma Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Mohammad Zakir Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Mohammad Zakir, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

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

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar to decide S.T. No. 27 of 2015 (relating to Case Crime no. 514 of 2014), Smt. Salma Vs Raheesu and others, under Section 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 302 I.P.C., Police Station Dankaur, District Gautam Buddh Nagar pending before Ist Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gautam Buddh Nagar within a stipulated period which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶9

Or

¶10

May be pleased to pass such further and suitable order as 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 occurred on 29.08.2014, a delayed FIR dated 30.08.2014 was lodged by first informant-applicant and was registered as Case Crime No. 514 of 2014, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 308, 506 IPC, Police Station-Dankaur, District-Gautam Buddha Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons namely (1) Raheesu, (2) Umar, (3) Shakeel, (4) Sharukh, (5) Faraqat and (6) Nanha have been nominated as named accused.

¶12

After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the

¶13

conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie established . It is, however, apposite to mention here that the injured died during course of investigation. In view of above, the Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 02.12.2014 against five of the named accused except Nanha but under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 302 IPC. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer submitted the supplementary charge sheet/police report dated 08.01.2015 against named accused Nanha and also under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 506, 452, 302 IPC.

¶14

Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 27 of 2015 (Smt. Salma Vs. Raheesu and Others) came to be registered. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial. He framed charges against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 21.09.2015.

¶15

Subsequent to above order dated 21.09.2015, the trial procedure commenced. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused has adduced 3 witnesses up to this stage.

¶16

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial of charge sheeted accused commenced in the year, 2015. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 9 years has rolled by, the trial of the accused has not yet conducted. The trial is not proceeding at the required pace but to the contrary, at a snail's pace. As per the charge sheet, there are as many as 18 witnesses nominated in the charge sheet. In view of the lackadaisical approach of Court below, there is no possibility of the trial getting concluded in near future. At this juncture, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to the order sheet and on basis thereof, he submits that the case has been repeatedly adjourned either on the ground of non presence of witnesses before Court below or adjournment/stay has been prayed on behalf of accused, which has been readily granted by Court below. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that interest of justice shall be served, in case, a positive direction is issued by this Court to Court below to proceed with aforementioned trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, exemption to the accused and further conclude the trial within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶17

Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. Referring to the observations made by the Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the learned A.G.A. submits that no direction for time bound disposal of criminal trial can now be issued by this Court. However, the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself carved out an exception that in case, exceptional circumstance exits, the Constitutional Court can direct for time bound disposal of a criminal case. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of this application, the learned A.G.A. submits that since no exceptional circumstance has emerged on record, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in present application.

¶18

Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending.

¶19

Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally with a direction to Court below to proceed with aforementioned Sessions Trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, stay/exemption to accused except in exceptional circumstance, to take such measure as are available under the Code (i.e. Cr.P.C.) to secure the presence of the witnesses and further ensure strict compliance of the mandate of law provided in Section 309 Cr.P.C./Section 346 BNSS.

¶20

Order Date :- 23.1.2025 Vinay

¶21

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

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

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

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