Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 29 May, 2025
Author: Manish Kumar
Bench: Manish Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:32636
Court No. - 14
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 411 of 2025
Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Avneesh Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.
1. Heard Shri Avneesh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Shri Abhishesh Singh, learned A.G.A for the State and perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C/529 B.N.S.S has been preferred with the following main prayer:-
" For the facts, reasons and circumstances stated in the accompanying affidavit, the humble applicant most respectfully prays from this Hon'ble Court to kindly to kindly direct the learned Trial Court i.e., Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pratapgarh to commit the case file of 172 of 2019 (State vs. Shyam Sundar Ydav & Ors.) under section 147,148,307,504,506,323 IPC arising out of case crime no. 428 of 2018 P.S Knadhai, District Pratapgarh before the Chief Judical Magistrate Dist-Pratapgarh,, in the interest of justice."
3. Learned A.G.A has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present application on two grounds; firstly, that the prayer made by the applicant is defective for the reason that in the prayer clause, it has been prayed that a direction may be issued to the court concerned to commit the case file no. 172 of 2019 (State versus Shyam Sundar Yadav and others) in compliance of the order dated 13.05.2024, passed in Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C No. 1519 of 2019. By order dated 13.05.2024, this court had disposed of the application with the direction to the trial court that if any compromise application is filed by the applicant, the same shall be verified without any further delay. It is an admitted case of the applicant that compromise was entered into between the parties before the court but one of the party denied the same hence, there is no occasion for the trial court to verify the compromise in pursuance of the order dated 13.05.2024, passed by this Court; secondly, the Five-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued direction that the High Court shall not fix any time frame for the disposal of the case or taking it out of turn in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad versus State of U.P and others, in Criminal appeal no. 3589 of 2023 with Special Leave Petition (Crl.) nos.13284-13289 of 2023. The relevant paragraph nos. 31 and 32 of the said judgment reported in 2024 are quoted hereinbelow:-
"31. The situation in Trial and district Courts is even worse. In 2002, in the case ofAll India Judges' Association & Ors v Union of India & Ors, this Court passed an order directing that the judge-to-population ratio within twenty years should be 50 per million. Even as of today, we are not able to reach the ratio of even 25 per million. The directions issued in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors have not been complied with by the States by increasing the Judge strength of the Trial and District Courts. The figures of pendency of cases in our trial Courts are staggering. There are different categories of cases which, by their very nature, are required to be given utmost priority, such as the cases of the accused in jail and the cases of senior citizens. For example, there are many legislations like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 etc which prescribe specific time limits for the disposal of cases. However, due to the huge filing and pendency, our Courts cannot conclude the trials within the time provided by the statutes. There is a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the form of Section (2002) 4 SCC 247 (2017) 3 SCC 658 309, which requires criminal cases to be heard on a day-to-day basis once the recording of evidence commences. The same Section provides that in case of certain serious offences against women, the cases must be decided within two months of filing the charge sheet. Unfortunately, our Criminal Courts are not in a position to implement the said provision. 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 concerned trial Court 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.
32. 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 concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."
4. It is further submitted that from the perusal of the order dated 20.08.2024, wherein it has been mentioned that the complainant had refused that he has entered into any compromise dated 05.08.2024, so there is no question of verification of the same and thereafter the matter has proceeded again, so it may be treated that the case is pending since 20.08.2024 as earlier the talks of compromise had going on.
5. In view of the submissions made by learned A.G.A and the judgment relied by him, it is not the proper stage wherein any direction could be issued to the concerned court for deciding the case within any stipulated time, hence, the application is devoid of merits hence dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2025/DiVYa
