Allahabad High Court
Sohanveer vs State Of U.P. Though It Principal ... on 23 April, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:65361
Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 7021 of 2025
Applicant :- Sohanveer
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Though It Principal Secretary (Home)
Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Atul Kumar, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Sohanveer, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the learned court concern to decide the preceeding of the Session Case No. 1997 of 2022 (State Vs. Rahul Pal and Others) Arising out of Case Crime No. 200 of 2022, Under Section 363, 323, 504, 506, 366, 368, 376(3) IPC and Sections 3/4/16/17 POCSO Act, Police Statio-Purkaji, District-Muzaffar Nagar, pending before Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge (POCSO Act), Muzaffar Nagar, expeditiously on the day to day basis within a stipulated period.
And/or pass such other and further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in the circumstances of the case otherwise Applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 27.08.2022, a prompt FIR dated 27.08.2022 was lodged by first informant-applicant and was registered as Case Crime No. 0200 of 2022, under Sections 363, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC and Sections 7/8 POCSO Act, Police Station-Purkaji, District-Muzaffarnagar. In the aforesaid FIR, five persons namely (1) Karan @ Kakka, (2) Rahul Pal, (3) Mukesh Devi, (4) Kalyan @ Kallu, (5) Neeru Balmiki were nominated as named accused, whereas an unknown person was also arraigned as an accused.
5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis of material collected by him, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that offence complained of is prima facie established. Consequently, he submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 16.11.2022 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. against three of the named accused under different Sections, whereas two of the named accused namely Mukesh Devi and Neeru @ Kuldeep were exculpated.
6. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the Jurisdictional Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Case No. 1997 of 2022 (State Vs. Rahul Pal and Others) came to be registered. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. He framed charges against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 23.03.2023.
7. Subsequent to above order dated 23.03.2023, the trial procedure commenced. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused has adduced only two witnesses up to this stage.
8. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that the trial of charge sheeted accused commenced in the year, 2022. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 2 and 1/2 years has rolled by, the trial of the accused has not yet concluded. The trial is not proceeding at the required pace but to the contrary, at a snail's pace. As per the charge sheet, there are as many as 12 prosecution witnesses nominated therein. In view of the lackadaisical approach of Court below in conducting the trial, there is no possibility of the trial getting concluded in near future. At this juncture, the learned counsel for applicant invited the attention of Court to the order sheet and on basis thereof, he submits that the case has been adjourned repeatedly either on the ground of non presence of witnesses before Court below or adjournment/stay was prayed on behalf of accused, which has been readily granted by Court below. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that interest of justice shall be served, in case, a positive direction is issued by this Court to Court below to proceed with aforementioned trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, exemption to the accused and further conclude the trial within a time period fixed by this Court.
8. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. Referring to the observations made by Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the learned A.G.A. submits that no direction for time bound disposal of criminal trial can now be issued by this Court. However, the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself carved out an exception that in case, exceptional circumstance exits, the Constitutional Court can direct for time bound disposal of a criminal case. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of this application, the learned A.G.A. submits that since no exceptional circumstance has emerged on record, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in present application.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending.
10. Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally with a direction to Court below to proceed with aforementioned Sessions Trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, stay/exemption to accused except in exceptional circumstance and to take such measure as are available under the Code (i.e. Cr.P.C.) to secure the presence of the witnesses and further ensure strict compliance of the mandate of law provided in Section 309 Cr.P.C./Section 346 BNSS.
Order Date :- 23.4.2025
Vinay
