Dismissed¶13

Yuvanshu Yadav v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC14 Jan 2025A482/42675/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court; Section 482 Cr.P.C. application; expedition/speedy disposal of trial; direction to trial court to conclude within stipulated time; ACJM-III Firozabad; Case No. 8764 of 2023; State Vs. Dharmendra Kumar @ D.K. and others; Case Crime No. 055 of 2021; Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC; P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad; stage of summoning of accused; complainant Yuvanshu Yadav; nothing exceptional shown; application dismissed; Samit Gopal, J.; Order Date 15.1.2025; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:6142; Counsel: Atul Kumar Singh, Ravi Kant Vikram, Tej Om Prakash Gupta, V.D. Ojha, G.A.

What did the court decide?

On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the Court found that the matter was at the stage of summoning of the accused. ¶11

Yuvanshu Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:6142

¶2

Court No. - 78

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 42675 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Yuvanshu Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar Singh,Ravi Kant Vikram Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Tej Om Prakash Gupta, Advocate holding brief of Sri Atul Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri V.D. Ojha, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶8

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Yuvanshu Yadav with the prayers to allow the application and may direct Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate III, Firozabad to expedite and conclude the Case No. 8764 of 2023 (State Vs. Dharmendra Kumar @ D.K. and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 055 of 2021, under Sections 380, 457, 411 IPC, P.S. Shikohabad, District Firozabad expeditiously within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court which is pending in the court of ACJM-III, Firozabad.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant at the very outset submits that the disclosure of the year since the pendency of the trial in para 9 is incorrectly typed, the same should have 2023. It is submitted that the applicant is the complainant of the present case and the trial of the present matter is pending since 2023 which may be directed to be disposed of concluded expeditiously preferably within stipulated period.

¶10

Learned counsel for the State opposed the prayer and submits that there is nothing on record in the matter that the matter is being adjourned.

¶11

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the matter is at the stage of summoning of the accused. There is nothing exceptional shown for passing any

¶12

order directed the trial court to be concluded in time bound manner.

¶13