Viajy Kumar Tiwari And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 12220 ALL

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 12220 ALL
Judgement Date : 6 September, 2022

Allahabad High Court

Viajy Kumar Tiwari And 2 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 6 September, 2022

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery




HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 82
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11377 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Viajy Kumar Tiwari And 2 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
 
Counsel for Applicant :- R.P. Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Brij Gopal,Devashish Tripathi
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1. Sri Rajeshwari Prasad, learned counsel for applicants, who are the opposite parties in the proceedings initiated under Section 145 Cr.P.C. way back in the year 1990, submits that proceedings were challenged before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 43288 of 1993 wherein there was a stay order. The writ petition was dismissed in default on 04.07.2002, however, matter was not proceeded further. After 18 years Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned proceeded further with the proceedings after taking recourse of Section 145(7) Cr.P.C., despite objection was made by applicants.

2. Learned counsel submits that proceedings are pending for last three decades and application filed on behalf of applicants to comply the provisions of Section 145(5) Cr.P.C. was not considered. Even no finding was given by impugned order dated 21.01.2002, whereby it has held that proceedings can be continued. In these circumstances, learned counsel submits that if any inquiry pending for last many years may be decided expeditiously and for that this Court may please to pass appropriate order.

3. It is very surprising that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.P.C. which are summary in nature are pending for last three decades, even after the writ petition pending before this Court was dismissed for non prosecution way back in the year 2002. It is also very surprising that Sub-Divisional Magistrate concerned has not considered the provisions of Section 145(5) Cr.P.C. and continued with the proceedings. Therefore, the application is disposed of with the direction that inquiry shall be concluded within a period of four weeks from today and while deciding proceedings the Magistrate shall take note of the provisions of Section 145(5) Cr.P.C. as well as considering the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Amresh Tiwari vs. Lalta Prasad Dubey and another, (2000) 4 SCC 440.

Order Date :- 6.9.2022