Allahabad High Court
Laxman Sahgal vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others on 8 August, 2025
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134489
Court No. - 83
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 2092 of 2025
Applicant :- Laxman Sahgal
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Arun Kumar Sharma,Awadh Bihari Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mohammad Sadab Khan
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.
1. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 today in the Court, the same is taken on record.
2. Heard Mr. Awadh Bihari Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Mohammad Sadab Khan and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State as well as perused the record.
3. By means of this application, the only prayer made by the applicant is that a direction be issued to the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar to decide the discharge applications in Case No. 1389 of 2021 (State Vs. Preeti Agarwal & others) arising out of Case Crime No. 0004 of 2020, under Sections 406, 467, 468, 471, 120B I.P.C., Police Station- Kotwali, Kanpur Nagar, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar, within a short stipulated period.
4. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 vehemently opposed prayer and has submitted that earlier the applicants have approached this Court in Application U/S 482 No. 19098 of 2024 (Laxman Sahgal Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others) and co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 1.10.2024 has dismissed the same, which reads as under:-
"1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Laxman Sahgal, 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 Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar for expeditious disposal of case no. 1389 of 2021 (State of U.P. versus Preeti Agarwal & others) arising out of First Information Report (F.I.R.) dated 05.01.2020 bearing Case Crime (C.C.) No. 0004/2020 u/s 406, 467, 468, 471, 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Kotwali, District Kanpur Nagar, else the applicant will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
And/or any other order as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case."
4. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. raised a preliminary objection by submitting that in view of the observations made in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment of Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the prayer prayed for by means of present application cannot be granted. For ready reference, paragraphs 41 and 42 of the aforesaid report are extracted herein below:-
"41. Apart from dealing with huge arrears, our trial courts face the challenge of dealing with a large number of cases made time-bound by our constitutional courts. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the constitutional courts should not exercise the power to direct the disposal of a case before any District or trial court within a time span. In many cases, while rejecting a bail petition, a time-limit is fixed for disposal of trial on the ground that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a long time without realising that the trial court concerned may have many pending cases where the accused are in jail for a longer period. The same logic will apply to the cases pending before the High Courts. When we exercise such power of directing High Courts to decide cases in a time-bound manner, we are not aware of the exact position of pendency of old cases in the said courts, which require priority to be given. Bail petitions remain pending for a long time. There are appeals against conviction pending where the appellants have been denied bail.
42. Therefore, constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."
5. It is then contended by the learned A.G.A. that the affidavit filed in support of present application runs into as many as 18 paragraphs but in none of the paragraphs, an attempt has been made to point out the exceptional circumstance warranting time bound disposal of aforementioned criminal case. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. submits that present application is liable to be dismissed.
6. When confronted withe above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the preliminary objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant, with reference to the record at this stage.
8. In view of above, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
9. It is, accordingly, dismissed."
5. Perusal of the order dated 1.10.2024, passed in Application U/S 482 No. 19098 of 2024 (Laxman Sahgal Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others), shows that the prayer made therein was for a direction to the court below concerned for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid case. The relief prayed herein is similar.
6. Accordingly, the present application U/s 529 B.N.S.S. is dismissed on the ground of concealment of fact.
Order Date :- 8.8.2025
Krishna*
