Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:25355 Court No. - 14 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 336 of 2025 Applicant :- Rohit Sherbahadur Tiwari @ Rohit Tiwari Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Durgesh Kumar Shukla,Basant Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. 1. The present application under Section 483 Cr.P.C/529 B.N.S.S has been preferred with the following main prayer:- " WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the application under section 529 B.N.S.S./483 Cr.P.C. filed by the applicant and direct the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistarte, Court No. 20, Sultanpur to expedite and decide the trial pending before the Learned Court within stipulated period of time in connection with Criminal Case No. 6661/2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 326/2023 registered at Police Station- Kurebhar, District-Sultanpur under sections 323, 504, 506, 308, 147 I.P.C. in the interest of justice." 2. On the other hand, learned A.G.A has raised a preliminary objection that the case was registered and for the first time the summons were issued on 01.03.2024, in between the accused persons had approached this court for further investigation in the matter, in which an order has been passed. In compliance thereof, a supplementary chargesheet has been filed on 27.10.2024 and thereafter, the court is proceeding with the matter by issuing bailable warrants with cost and within six months of the filing of the supplementary chargesheet, the present application has been filed. 3. It is further submitted that in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad versus State of U.P and others, the Five-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had issued direction that the High Court shall not fix any time frame for the disposal of the case or taking it out of turn. 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. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records of the case, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above, this Court does not find any merit in the case, hence, the present application is dismissed. Order Date :- 2.5.2025 DiVYa Digitally signed by :- DIVYA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench