Allahabad High Court
Akhilesh Kumar Mishra vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 19 March, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42968
Court No. - 70
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41646 of 2024
Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Mishra
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- J Shubham,Jitendra Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, 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 this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application under 482 Cr.P.C. and direct the court concern to decide/conclude the Session Trial No. 113 of 2014 (State Vs. Ram Naresh Bind and others) arising out of case crime no.1160 of 2013 under section 302 IPC, Police Station Rampur Karkhana, District Deoria pending in the court of Additional Session Judge-Ist, Deoria expeditiously within a stipulated period so fixed by this Hon'ble Court, otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.
And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case."
4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 04.08.2013, a prompt FIR dated 04.08.2013 was lodged by first informant-applicant-Akhilesh Kumar Mishra and was registered as Case Crime No. 1160 of 2013, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Rampur Karkhana, District-Deoria. In the aforesaid FIR, four persons namely (1) Ram Naresh Bind, (2) Harigovind Bind, (3) Suresh Bind and (4) Akhilesh Mishra @ Mahanya were nominated as named 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 against named accused i.e. opposite parties 2 to 5 herein is prima facie established. He, accordingly, submitted the charge sheet/police report dated 05.10.2013 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., whereby all the named accused were charge sheeted under Section 302 IPC.
6. Upon submission of aforementioned charge sheet/police report, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Consequently, charge sheeted accused were summoned. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 113 of of 2014 (State Vs. Ram Naresh Bind and Others), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Rampur Karkhana, District-Deoria came to be registered in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-Ist, Deoria.
7. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial. He, accordingly, framed charges against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 28.07.2017 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 228 Cr.P.C. The same is clearly explicit from the order sheet, relevant portion of which is at page 43 of the paper book. Charge sheeted accused denied the charges so framed and demanded trial. Resultantly, the trial procedure commenced. As such, the burden fell upon the prosecution to adduce evidence to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused.
8. Prosecution in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused has adduced only one prosecution witness i.e. PW-1 up to this stage.
9. On the above premise, the learned counsel for applicant submits that up to this stage, the deposition of only PW-1 has been recorded. The statement of no other witnesses has been recorded thereafter. He, therefore, contends that Court below is proceeding with the trial in a purely lackadaisical manner. The trial is of the year, 2014 and in spite of the fact that a period of more than 10 years has rolled by, the trial 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 15 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 of above-mentioned Sessions Trial and on basis thereof, he submits that the trial has been adjourned in a very casual manner. No attempt has been made by Court below to ensure speedy disposal of the trial. 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.
10. 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.
11. Be that as it may, 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.
12. 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 :- 19.3.2025
Vinay
