Moh. Raees vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 1636 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 13
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 88 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Moh. Raees
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko And 4 Other
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Akhilendra Kumar Goswami
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

The petition has been filed under Section 482 CrPC to direct respondent No.2, i.e. Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate First, Faizabad, district Ayodhya/Faizabad to take a decision on Complaint Case No.1067 of 2015 Mohd. Raees versus Mohd. Said and others, expeditiously.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State.

Notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complaint case has been filed by the petitioner way back on 6.6.2015 and the proceeding is going on at a very slow pace. It is submitted that the pending complaint case is required to be expedited.

A perusal of the order sheet of the trial Court shows that a number of dates have been fixed, however, the trial could not proceed because of non-appearance of the petitioner. Order sheet is on record. Thus, the complainant himself is responsible for the delay in trial.

On due consideration to the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner, perusal of the order sheet as also the judgment of Supreme Court in M. Gopalakrishnan and others versus Pasumpon Muthuramalingam and another Special Leave Petition (Criminal) Diary No.(s) 30839 of 2021, I find that primarily, it is the petitioner who is responsible for the delay in trial. There is no cogent and extremely compelling reasons to upset the calendar and schedule of the trial court so as to direct expeditious disposal of the pending trial.

The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

Order Date :- 27.4.2022

kkb/