Allahabad High Court
Dr. Sudershan Kumar vs C.J.M., Lucknow And Anr. on 4 July, 2014
Bench: Ajai Lamba
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 26
Case :- U/S 482/378/407 No. - 2953 of 2014
Applicant :- Dr. Sudershan Kumar
Opposite Party :- C.J.M., Lucknow And Anr.
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Shitla Prasad Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ajai Lamba,J.
(Oral)
This petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to seek direction to concerned Magistrate dealing with Misc. Case No.48 of 2013, Case Crime No.198 of 2012 under Sections 418,167,420 I.P.C., P.S. Hazratganj, District Lucknow, pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow, to decide the protest petition within stipulated period.
It has been contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that petitioner lodged F.I.R. No.192 of 2012 (Case Crime No.198 of 2012) on 22.5.2012. Although the facts clearly indicated commission of cognizable offences, the investigating agency filed a final report dated 17.1.2013. It has been specifically pleaded that although sufficient material was given to the investigating agency, the same was not taken into consideration.
Be that as it may, the petitioner-complainant exercising his right filed a protest petition (Annexure-4). The protest petition has been pending adjudication since 3.6.2013. The petition has not been heard even once. No reason has been assigned for adjourning the case repeatedly.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State has assisted the Court and has not been able to dispute that on a number of hearings case has been adjourned without assigning any reason for adjournment.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court has taken into account the fact that on 19.11.2013, 26.11.2013, 10.12.2013, 19.1.2014, 27.1.2014, 7.2.2014, 13.2.2014, 27.2.2014, 14.3.2014, 26.5.2014, 28.5.2014 and 11.6.2014 although the complainant was present, however, the protest petition was not considered. Without assigning any reason the case was adjourned to the next date.
This court does not trace any logic in the conduct of the Chief Judicial Magistrate in adjourning the case a number of times without assigning any reason that would be valid.
Surely, pendency of the petition for a period of one year after filing of protest petition is unreasonable and cannot possibly be justified.
In the considered opinion of this court, circumstances warrant issuance of a direction to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lucknow to take up the protest petition and pass order thereupon within three weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this order, after taking into account various facts and circumstances of the case, in context of law.
Ordered accordingly.
This petition is allowed with above directions.
Order Date :- 4.7.2014
A.Nigam
