Praveen Chandra Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39971

Court No. - 70

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 8760 of 2025

Applicant :- Praveen Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

¶7

Perused the record.

¶8

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

¶9

"It is therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased direct the Court below to decide the Special Case No. 311 of 2022 (State Vs. Prashant Singh), arising out of Case Crime No. 125 of 2022, Under Sections 363, 366, 304, 376 I.P.C., & Section 3/4 of PCOSO Act, Police Station Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar pending before the Court of Additional Session Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar expeditiously and within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court; otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

¶10

Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 25.02.2022, a delayed FIR dated 26.02.2022 was lodged by first informant-applicant and was registered as Case Crime No. 0125 of 2022, under Sections 366, 363 IPC, Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar. In the aforesaid FIR, one person namely Prashant Singh was nominated as named accused.

¶11

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 of material collected by him, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie established. Consequently, he submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 19.05.2022 in terms of Section 173(2)

¶12

Cr.P.C. against named accused Prashant Singh, under Sections 363, 366, 304, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act.

¶13

Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by Court concerned. Resultantly, Special Case No. 311 of 2022 (State Vs. Prashant Singh), under Sections 363, 366, 304, 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act, Police Station-Khalilabad, District-Sant Kabir Nagar came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (POCSO Act), Sant Kabir Nagar.

¶14

The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial. He framed charges against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 15.07.2022 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. Subsequent to above order dated 15.07.2022, the trial procedure commenced.

¶15

Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused has adduced only two prosecution 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, 2022. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than two years and 7 months has rolled by, the trial of the accused has not yet concluded. 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 22 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. In view of the lackadaisical approach of Court below in conducting the trial, 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 adjourned repeatedly either on the ground of non presence of witnesses before Court below or adjournment/stay was 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 Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges

¶18

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.

¶19

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 no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending.

¶20

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 and 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 and further the legislative mandate contained in Section 35(2) of the POCSO Act, which provides that the trial under the POCSO Act be concluded within a period of one year from the date of taking congizance.

¶21

Order Date :- 19.3.2025 Vinay

¶22

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

Praveen Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Chandra Pandey v. State of U.P. and Another

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