Disposed¶14

Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC27 Jan 2025A483/26/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

S.483 Cr.P.C. speedy-disposal application by accused; stalled trial (Case No. 480 of 2019; crime no. 585 of 2018; Ss. 323/504/506 IPC; P.S. Faridpur, Bareilly) pending since 2019, charges framed 2023, zero prosecution evidence; directions for witness compulsion via process, 18-month completion target keyed to certified-copy production, adjournment prohibition, and binding of all trial stakeholders (police, executive, counsel, parties, staff); CJM Bareilly; Allahabad High Court; decided 27.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with directions to the trial court to compel witness attendance through process and to endeavour completion of the trial within one year and six months of production of the certified copy of this order, subject to no legal impediment, with a bar on unnecessary adjournments. ¶14

Ganga Ram vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court (Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly) should be directed to decide the long-pending criminal case (Case No. 480 of 2019, Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Faridpur, District Bareilly) expeditiously within a stipulated period, given that charges framed in 2023 have yielded no witness examination.

¶6

Court's answer

The Court concerned (trial court) is directed to invoke the powers given to it under the law to ensure the presence of the witnesses by sending appropriate process as early as possible, and to make all endeavours for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶11

Ratio / Principle

An indicative outer limit is fixed: expeditious disposal, if possible, within one year and six months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order before the trial court, provided there is no legal impediment.

¶11

Key takeaways

No unnecessary adjournment shall be sought or granted in the trial of the case.ratio¶11
The Presiding Officer is not the only stakeholder in trial and disposal; besides the P.O., all stakeholders — police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. — are made bound by this order to assist the Court in every manner for expeditious disposal. (Operative supplementary directive extending the expedite-duty beyond the trial court.)ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J.; Order Date 27.1.2025) disposed of an application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. by an accused (Case APPLICATION U/S 483 No. 26 of 2025) seeking expeditious disposal of Criminal Case No. 480 of 2019 — arising out of case crime no. 585 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly — pending since 2019 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly, where charges framed in 2023 had produced no witness examination and no prosecution evidence. Perusing the order sheets, the Court directed the trial court to invoke its statutory powers to ensure witness presence by sending appropriate process, to make all endeavours for disposal within one year and six months from production of the certified copy of the order (absent legal impediment), and ruled that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought or granted. It further declared the Presiding Officer not the sole stakeholder, binding police and executive authorities, counsels, parties and staff to assist in expeditious disposal.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:13711

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 26 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Ganga Ram Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Shubhranshu Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.

¶6

This application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to decide the Case No. 480 of 2019, arising out of case crime no. 585 of 2018, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Faridpur, District Bareilly pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bareilly expeditiously within stipulated period.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is one of the accused in the said case and same is pending since 2019. The Court concerned is not taking proper interest in disposal of the said case. In this case charges have been framed in the year 2023 but no witness has been examined so far.

¶9

Learned AGA opposed the prayer.

¶10

I have considered the submissions and perused the record.

¶11

It reveals from the perusal of the order sheets that charges in this matter were framed in the year 2023 and since then the case is pending at the stage of evidence but no evidence is being adduced by the prosecution. In the circumstances, the Court concerned is directed to invoke the powers given to it under the law to ensure the presence of the witnesses by sending appropriate process as early as possible and make all endeavours for expeditious disposal of the case and if possible within one year and six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it, if there is no legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted.

¶12

It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the

¶13

only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case.

¶14

With the above observations, the application stands disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 27.1.2025 safi

¶16

Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Durgesh Kannaujiya vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Somveer vs State of U.P. and Another

Padamveer @ Paramveer Yadav @ Sonu Yadav vs State of Up and Another

Sanjay Yadav vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Abdul Waheed vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Soni Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 7 Others