Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:2216 Court No. - 71 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 34569 of 2024 Applicant :- Santosh Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dashrath Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J. 1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Lal, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State. 2. Perused the record. 3. Applicant-Santosh Yadav, 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 that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant and issue direction to the Court concerned to decide expeditiously the Session Trial No. 758 of 2016, State Vs. Shailendra Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 429 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Fast Track Court-II, Allahabad otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case." 4. Record shows that applicant earlier approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26978 of 2017 (Santosh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2017. For ready reference, the order dated 25.08.2017 is reproduced hereinunder:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The only prayer made by the applicant is that Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Allahabad be directed to decide the S.T. No. 758 of 2016, case crime no. 429 of 2016 within a stipulated period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed off with a direction to the aforementioned court concerned to decide the aforesaid sessions trial expeditiously, in case the proceedings have not already been completed, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of." 5. Thereafter, applicant again approached this Court by means of subsequent application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 35218 of 2018 ( Santosh Yadav vs. State of U.P.). The said application was disposed of finally vide order dated 04.10.2018. For ready reference, the order dated 04.10.2018 is reproduced hereinunder:- "Heard Mr. Dashrath Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed for a direction upon the Court below to decide the Sessions Trial No. 758 of 2016 (State Vs. Shailendra Yadav and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that previously the applicant had approached this Court for a similar direction by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of finally vide order dated 25.8.2017. For ready reference, the order dated 25.8.2017 is reproduced:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The only prayer made by the applicant is that Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Allahabad be directed to decide the S.T. No. 758 of 2016, case crime no. 429 of 2016 within a stipulated period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed off with a direction to the aforementioned court concerned to decide the aforesaid sessions trial expeditiously, in case the proceedings have not already been completed, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of. " Learned counsel for the applicant invited the attention of the Court to the order sheet of the above mentioned sessions trial and on the basis thereof, he submits that in the aforesaid trial, the issue regarding the framing of charge, is engaging the attention of the Court since 17.9.2016. There is no change in the progress of the aforesaid Session Trial and on account of the aforesaid fact, the second application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed. The same is therefore maintainable. In support of the aforesaid, reliance is placed upon the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B Vs. Mohan Singh reported in (1975) 3 SCC 706 and on the basis thereof, he submits that in the light of the circumstances as noted herein above, the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is maintainable. Prima facie submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant are found to be correct. Considering the nature of the proceedings, pending before the Court below and the manner in which the trial has been proceeding, it is hereby directed that the Court concerned shall proceed with trial of the above mentioned case by fixing two dates in a week and without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The Court below shall positively conclude the trial within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this Order. With the aforesaid directions, the application is finally disposed of." 6. Learned counsel for applicant submits that inspite of above orders dated 25.08.2017 and 04.10.2018 the trial of above- mentioned Sessions Trial has not yet been concluded. It is on account of above that applicant has now approached this Court by means of the third application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. On the basis of aforesaid exception, he therefore, contends that present application is liable to be allowed. 7. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for opposite party-1 has vehemently opposed the present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that in case the order dated 25.08.2017 and 04.10.2018 were not complied with by Court below, the remedy lies to the applicant to approach this Court by means of an application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. However, simply because the order has not been complied with, the third application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. shall not be maintainable. Since no new circumstance has emerged, therefore, in view of the prohibition contained in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, W. B Vs. Mohan Singh reported in (1975) 3 SCC 706, the third application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for the same relief shall not be maintainable. Learned A.G.A. has then invited the attention of Court to paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. 2024 SCC Online SC 207, wherein Court has categorically observed that the High Court should not pass an order directing the Court below to decide a particular case within a time bound period can be passed gone a step further and held that in case an exceptional circumstance is pointed out. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the learned A.G.A. contends that no such exceptional circumstance is borne out from the record warranting direction to Court below to decide the Sessions Trial in a time bound period. On the above conspectus, the learned A.G.A. contends that no interference is warranted by this Court in present application. 8. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that the objections raised by the learned A.G.A. in opposition to this application are not only borne out from the record and furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicant. As such, no good ground exists to entertain the present application. 10. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed. 131 It is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Imtiyaz Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad