Mahendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 14265 of 2025

Applicant :- Mahendra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anurag Yadav,Priyanka Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Mr. Anurag Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1

¶6

Perused the record.

¶7

Applicant-Mahendra Yadav, who is first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer:

¶8

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Direct to the Court Of Session Judge, Azamgarh to decide Session Trial No.206 of 2021 (State Vs. Ranvijay Yadav and others), arising out of Case Crime No.0069 of 2021, Under Section 147, 323/149, 504, 302/149 IPC and Section 7 of C.L.A Act, Police Station-Bardah, District-Azamgarh, which is pending before the Court Of Session Judge, Azamgarh since 07.09.2021 to till date, and/or may pass such other and further order and direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶9

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 29.03.2021, a delayed F.I.R. dated 30.03.2021 was lodged from by first informant i.e. applicant herein and was registered as Case Crime No.0069 of 2021, Under Sections 147, 323, 504, 302 IPC and Section 7 of C.L.A Act, Police StationBardah, District-Azamgarh. In the aforesaid F.I.R., nine persons

¶10

namely Ranvijay Yadav, Chandelal Yadav, Prakash Yadav. Shashikant Yadav, Indal Yadav, Lalbahadur Yadav, Ramlawat Yadav, Amit Yadav and Ravindra Yadav i.e. opposite parties 2 to 10 herein, were nominated as named accused.

¶11

After aforementioned F.I.R. was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of aforementioned case crime number in terms of Chapter XII Cr.P.C.He accordingly examined the first informant and other witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that not only the offence complained of is prima-facie fully established but the complicity of named accused in the crime in question is also apparent He accordingly submitted the charge sheet/ police report dated 21.05.2021 in terms of Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C whereby and whereunder all the named accused were charge sheeted under Sections 147, 323, 504, 302/34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of C.L.A Act. As per the said charge sheet/police report 22 prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein.

¶12

Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190 (1) (b) Cr.P.C. Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by Court of Sessions, therefore, the jurisdictional Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Session as per mandate of Section 209 Cr.P.C. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial and framed charges against charge sheeted accused vide Framing of Charge Order dated 09.05.2022. In spite of the fact that a period of more than three years has rolled by since the framing of charge order passed by court below only the statement-in-chief of P.W.-1 has

¶13

been recorded till date.

¶14

On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial is proceeding at a snail's pace and not at the required pace. In view of the lackadaisical approach of court below in proceeding with the trial, there is no liklihood of the trial getting concluded in near future Attention of the Court was then invited to the order sheet of aforementioned Sessions Trial and on basis thereof it is urged by the learned counsel for applicant that the proceedings of aforementioned Sessions Trial have been adjourned either on account of adjournment prayed on behalf of accused, exemption prayed on behalf of accused, which has been readly granted by court below without recording any sufficient reason for non appearance of the witnesses. According to the learned counsel for applicant, as per the recital contained in the order sheet, proceedings of the trial were adjourned once on the request of the prosecution. On the above conspectus, the learned counsel for applicant thus submits that delay in the conclusion of trial is not attributable to the applicant. He therefore submits that interest of justice shall be served in case a positive direction is issued by this Court to court below to conclude aforementioned Sessions Trial within a time period fixed by this Court.

¶15

Be that as it may, 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 in the fitness of the scheme of things as is exist, it is desirable to call for a report from the Presiding Officer/court below. The Court below/Presiding Officer is directed to submit his report explaining the circumstances regarding slow progress in the trial/delay conclusion of trial to this Court within a period of 10 days from today.

¶16

Matter shall re-appear as fresh on 26.05.2025.

¶17

Order Date :- 12.5.2025 YK

¶18

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

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 9 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Yadav v. State of U.P. and 9 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

Laxmi Narayan Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Narendra and Another vs State of U.P. and 16 Others

Abhinav vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Devendra @ Pappu vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahendra Yadav vs State of U.P. and 9 Others

Laxmi Narayan Chaurasiya vs State of U.P. and Another