Petitioner sought a direction for early disposal of a pending criminal revision. The court held an application could be made under Section 529 BNSS and that, given docket congestion and the revision's recent filing, no direction for speedy hearing was warranted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1940 of 2026
Gopal Krishna Kaushik (Sharma)
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
| Jitendra Pratap Singh | .....Respon |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : Ritika Singh |
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : |
.....Respondent(s)
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
April 17, 2026
Ankit
Digitally signed by :- ANKIT SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
2 issues framed by the court
Should the High Court under Article 227 direct expeditious disposal of Criminal Revision No. 85 of 2025 pending before the District Judge, Balrampur?
Was the Article 227 petition maintainable given the alternative remedy under Section 529 BNSS?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gopal Krishna Kaushik (Sharma)
Jitendra Pratap Singh
Subhash Vidyarthi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
