Pramila And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5203 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 69
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3388 of 2023
 

 
Applicant :- Pramila And 4 Others
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Shad Khan,Chandra Prakash Singh,Pranav Mishra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

List revised.

Heard Shri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the applicants, Shri B.B. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the State and perused the material brought on record.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants-Smt. Pramilaa, Shri Lobhi, Neeraj, Dileep and Ashok with the prayer to quash the summoning order dated 10.8.2018 passed by C.J.M. Maharajganj (Annexure No.2) and entire proceeding of Complaint Case No.1546 of 2018, u/s 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Ghughali, District Maharaganj and further with the prayer to stay the further proceeding of aforesaid case during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court.

At the very outset it is brought to the notice of the Court that as per the report of the stamp reporter, a previous application being Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.3951 of 2020 by the same applicants has been filed. List of fresh cases shows the status of the same to be disposed of.

On being countered, learned counsel for the applicants sought short time to see the same and produce the order of the said petition before the Court. Now learned counsel for the applicants has produced an order dated 25.2.2020 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.3951 of 2020, Pramila Gupta and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and another which is taken on record. Learned counsel for the applicants states that he has no information about the filing of the previous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and has not been instructed by the applicants and even the deponent Pramila Gupta who is the applicant no.1 about the same and as such in para no.2 of the affidavit it has been mentioned that this is the first application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court for the present cause of action. He states that looking to the fact that the applicants have previously approached this Court for quashing of the entire proceedings and also the judgement and order dated 29.8.2019 passed by the revisional court as well as the summoning order, the present application be dismissed as withdrawn.

Learned counsel for the State has serious objections for the same.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the records, it is evident that the applicants and two other persons have preferred Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.3951 of 2020, Pramila Gupta and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and another which stood disposed of vide order dated 25.2.2020 passed by coordinate Bench of this Court. As the learned counsel had given up the prayer for challenging the judgement and order, entire proceedings of the case and had requested the said Court to pass an order directing the courts below to decide the bail application of the applicants expeditiously, the said petition was disposed of with the direction to decide the bail application expeditiously. The said order reads as follows:-

"Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the applicants is to quash the judgment and order dated 29.08.2019 passed by learned Sessions Court, Maharajganj in Criminal Revision No. 58 of 2019 and entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 1546 of 2018, u/s 147, 323, 504, 506 IPC, P.S. Ghughali, District Maharajganj, pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Maharajganj as well as summoning order dated 10.04.2019.

After arguing the case for quite some time at length and pitted against certain observations made by the Court, learned counsel for the applicants himself has given up to address the Court on merits of the case and prayed, that the purpose of his client would suffice, if a direction may be given to the courts below to decide their bail application within specific time frame.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the opinion that since learned counsel for the applicants has already given up that he does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below would extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit according to the merit of each case) as contemplated in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after the applicants surrender within 45 days before the court and if their bail applications are filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :-

".......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to ensure timely disposal of cases."

To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and another (Supra):

(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :

(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.

(iii).......................................................................................................;

iv)......................................................................................................."

The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.

For the period of 45 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.

It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 45 days.

The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.

In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.

In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.

However, if so advised, the applicants may file discharge application after being bailed out, ventilating their grievances therein, before the court concerned, which shall be considered expeditiously, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of."

Now the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed challenging the summoning order and the entire proceedings of the said case. The same is a repeat petition. The affidavit in the present application has been sworn by Pramila Gupta who is the applicant no.1 herein and was even the applicant no.1 in the previous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. There is no disclosure of the previous application but to the contrary there is a concealment of filing of the previous application. Para 2 of the affidavit of the present application states that present application is first application and no other application is filed before this Court for the present cause of action, para no.2 reads as follows:-

"2. That this is the first criminal misc. application filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. before this Hon'ble Court for the present cause of action and no other criminal revision, application or writ is filed or pending before this Hon'ble Court for the present cause of action."

In view of the same it is apparent that the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with concealment of relevant and vital fact that the applicants have previously approached this Court by filing earlier Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.3951 of 2020 which stood disposed of by order dated 25.2.2020. Even there is no disclosure as to whether the said order has been complied with or not.

The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is a repeat application with the same prayers without any change of circumstances. The applicants have not approached this Court with clean hands. In view of the same this is a case which is clearly a misuse of process of Court.

Thus the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is dismissed with a cost of Rs.25,000/- which shall be deposited by the applicants of the present case within one month from today before the Registrar General of this Court for its utilization by the High Court Legal Service Committee to which it shall be transferred. If the cost is not deposited within the said time, the District Magistrate/Collector concerned be directed to recover it as land revenue arrears forthwith and transmit it to this Court for its utilisation as above.

(Samit Gopal, J.)

Order Date :- 16.2.2023

Gaurav