Disposed¶8

Rajeev Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC2 Mar 2025NA529/368/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Trial expedition; delay in S.138 NI Act complaint case; application u/s 483 CrPC / captioned u/s 529 BNSS; direction to record statement of accused within three months; expeditious disposal; no unnecessary adjournments; stakeholder responsibility of police, advocates, parties and staff; summoning order 13.12.2021; bail 3.1.2025; charges not framed; Allahabad High Court; Gautam Buddh Nagar; Rajeev Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

What did the court decide?

Application disposed of with directions to the trial court to record the statement of accused/opposite party no.2 within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, to endeavour expeditious disposal absent legal impediment, to refrain from unnecessary adjournments, and binding all stakeholders (police, execution authorities, advocates, parties, staff) to assist the Court.

Rajeev Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial court should be directed to conclude the trial in Complaint Case No. 3191 of 2021 (Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act) expeditiously within a stipulated period.

¶1

Ratio / Principle

The Court concerned is directed to record the statement of accused/opposite party no.2 within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it, and thereafter to make all endeavours for expeditious disposal of the case if there is no legal impediment.

¶6

Key takeaways

No unnecessary adjournment shall be sought or granted in the case.ratio¶6
Besides the Presiding Officer, all stakeholders i.e. police and execution authorities, advocates, parties to the case, staff etc. are made bound by this order and it is their responsibility to assist the Court in every manner for expeditious disposal of the case.ratio¶7
Observation that criminal courts are not helpless to ensure compliance of their own orders by the concerned police and administrative authorities; they have ample powers in the CrPC itself, and the trial court is expected to invoke its power to ensure service of process upon accused persons.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Application under S. 483 Cr.P.C. (captioned u/s 529 BNSS) by applicant Rajeev Yadav seeking expeditious conclusion of Complaint Case No. 3191 of 2021 (S. 138 Negotiable Instruments Act), P.S. Sector-49 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, pending since 2021 before the Additional Court, Room No.1. Summoning order dated 13.12.2021; accused/opposite party no.2 appeared and obtained bail on 3.1.2025; charges not yet framed. Held: trial court directed to record the accused's statement within three months from production of a certified copy of the order and thereafter expedite disposal if there is no legal impediment; no unnecessary adjournments to be sought/granted; besides the Presiding Officer, all stakeholders (police and execution authorities, advocates, parties, staff) bound to assist the Court. Application disposed of. (Nalin Kumar Srivastava, J., Order Date 3.3.2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:29465

¶2

Court No. - 82

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 368 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Rajeev Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Chaubey,Pravin Kumar Tiwari 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 conclude the trial in Complaint Case No. 3191 of 2021, under Section138 Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sector-49 Noida, District Gautam Buddh Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Court, Room No.1, Gautam Buddh Nagar expeditiously within a stipulated period.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. Compliance affidavit filed by the State is taken on record.

¶8

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid complaint case is pending since 2021 and after passing the summoning order dated 13.12.2021 the Court had to take harsh steps against opposite party no.2, the accused, as he was not appearing before the Court despite service of process, however, ultimately the accused/ opposite party no.2 appeared and got bail on 3.1.2025. It is further submitted that till date charges has have not been framed by the trial Court against the opposite party no.2 and the Court concerned is not taking any interest for disposal of the case.

¶9

I have considered the submissions and perused the entire record.

¶10

It is reminded that the criminal Courts are not helpless to ensure compliance of its own orders by the concerned police and administrative authorities. They have got ample powers for the same in the CrPC itself. The trial court is expected to invoke its power to ensure service of process upon the accused persons, which is sent under its seal and order in order to procure the

¶11

presence of the accused.

¶12

In the circumstances, the Court concerned is directed to record the statement of accused/ opposite party no.2 within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before it and thereafter all endeavours shall be made by it for expeditious disposal of the case, if there is no legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted.

¶13

It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder of the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and execution authorities, advocates, 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 :- 3.3.2025 Fhd

¶16

Digitally signed by :- FAHAD NIYAZ High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajeev Yadav v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Yadav 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases