Sajay Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 46203 of 2025

¶3

Sajay Kumar Yadav

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

	Versus
State of U.P. and Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Chandan Kumar Shankar Pandey	Chaturvedi, Uma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 76

¶7

HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶9

The present application has been filed by the applicant with the following relief:-

¶10

" It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and stay the entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.4197 of 2016 (Rakesh Vs. Sanjay) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh till final decision of the protest petition filed against the final report dated 25.06.2022 filed by the applicant in Case Crime No.151 of 2022, u/S 406, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Azamgarh.

¶11

It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may also be pleased to direct the concerned court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Azamgarh to consider and decide the application of the applicant dated 26.09.2025 filed in Complaint Case No.4197 of 2016 (Rakesh Vs. Sanjay) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Phoolpur, District- Azamgarh, during the pendency of the instant application before this Hon'ble Court; otherwise applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. "

¶12

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before the court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time bound manner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is

¶13

NA528 No. 46203 of 2025

¶14

2

¶15

the informant before the court concerned.

¶16

Learned AGA submits that the speedy trial is one of the essential requirement of judicial process and he submits that the present application may be decided in terms of judgement dated 29.2.2024 passed by Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State of U.P and others – 2023 INSC 150.

¶17

The prayer in the present application by the applicant is for disposal of the above mentioned case in a time bound manner. The Supreme Court in a recent judgement dated 29.2.2024 being High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State of U.P and others (supra) has held as under :-

¶18

" Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and "

¶19

Learned counsel for the applicant has not shown any exceptional circumstances to issue direction at this stage. Considering the nature of prayer made by counsel for the applicant, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies before the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case.

¶20

In view of the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to prefer an application before the court concerned for disposal of the above mentioned case in a time bound manner. In the event any such application is filed by the applicant before the court concerned, the court concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. It goes without saying that the prosecution shall co-operate in the trial court proceeding and shall produce the prosecution witness without delay. The accused person shall also not be granted any unnecessary adjournment by the court concerned.

¶21

It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before the court concerned in disposal of the case, then the court concerned shall

¶22

NA528 No. 46203 of 2025

¶23

3

¶24

pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with.

¶25