Sunita Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another
2022 Latest Caselaw 5437 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 10
 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 15682 of 2022
 
Applicant :- Sunita Devi
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Srivastava,S.P. Vishwakarma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

Heard Sri V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking a direction upon Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah to decide Case No. 1368 of 2018 (Sunita Devi vs. Ravikant), under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the cases within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.

For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."

As the Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra) has directed that no such direction can be issued to subordinate courts for deciding the cases out of turn, however, keeping in view the mandate of Section 143 (2) of N.I. Act, the court below shall make every endeavour to comply with the provisions of said Act.

In view of said fact, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 27.6.2022

V.S.Singh