Smt Chandrakala v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC19 Mar 2026NA529/1030/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expeditious disposal / speedy trial direction; Section 529 BNSS application; Allahabad High Court; non-compliance with earlier Section 483 direction (order dated 18.9.2023); Complaint Case No.252 of 2019, Bulandshahr; three-month timeline with personal-appearance default clause against Magistrate; no merits decided; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the court of ACJ(SD)/ACJM, Room No.4, Bulandshahr to decide Complaint Case No.252 of 2019 in accordance with law within three months of production of a certified copy of the order, without unnecessary adjournments, if there is no legal impediment; failing which the concerned Magistrate is to appear in person before the High Court and explain the delay. Case listed after three months. ¶¶11

Smt Chandrakala vs State of U.P. and Another — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶11

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued to the court of ACJ(SD)/ACJM, Room No.4, Bulandshahr to decide Complaint Case No.252 of 2019, pending before it, expeditiously within a stipulated period, particularly in view of the alleged non-compliance with the earlier order dated 18.9.2023 in Application U/S 483 No. 1052 of 2023.

¶¶9

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed the court concerned to decide Complaint Case No.252 of 2019 in accordance with law within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment.

¶¶11

Ratio / Principle

In default — if the court below fails to decide the case within the stipulated three months — the concerned Magistrate is directed to appear before this Court in person and explain why the case has not been decided within that period.

¶¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.) allowed an application under Section 529 BNSS seeking expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No.252 of 2019 pending before ACJ(SD)/ACJM, Room No.4, Bulandshahr. The applicant had earlier obtained an order dated 18.9.2023 in Application U/S 483 No. 1052 of 2023 directing decision preferably within six months, but the court below had not complied despite service of a certified copy. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed decision in accordance with law within three months of production of a certified copy of the instant order, without unnecessary adjournments and subject to no legal impediment; in default, the concerned Magistrate was directed to appear in person and explain the non-disposal. The case was listed after three months.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 1030 of 2026

¶3

Smt Chandrakala

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ambleshwar Pandey, Kanishk Jaiswal, Suraj Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶6

Court No. - 50

¶7

HON'BLE SHEKHAR KUMAR YADAV, J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶9

By means of this application, the only prayer made by the applicant is that a direction be issued to the court of ACJ(SD)/ACJM, Room No.4, Bulandshahr to decide the Complaint Case No.252 of 2019, pending before him, expeditiously within a short stipulated period.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that earlier the applicant has approached this Court in Application U/S 483 No. 1052 of 2023 and this Court vide order dated 18.9.2023 disposed of the same directing the Court below to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, without granting any unnecessary or long adjournments to either of the parties, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before it, if there is no other legal impediment. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant has served copy of order dated 18.9.2023 upon the court below but till date, the court below has not complied with the order dated 18.9.2023 passed by this Court.

¶11

Considering the facts of the case but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the applicant's case, court concerned is directed to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without

¶12

NA529 No. 1030 of 2026

¶13

¶14

granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible, if there is no legal impediment and in case, the court below is failed to decide the same within the aforesaid period, the concerned Magistrate is directed to appear before this in person and explain as to why the aforesaid case has not been decided within the aforesaid period.

¶15

List this case after three months.

¶16

(Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.)

¶17

March 19, 2026 Krishna*

¶18

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

Smt Chandrakala v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Chandrakala 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

Similar cases

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, through Its General Manager vs Smt Maya and 7 Others

Arjun Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Ram Devi and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Awadhesh and 5 Others

Ganesh and 3 Others vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shabbir and 5 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others