Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:35952 Court No. - 2 Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1930 of 2025 Applicant :- Archana Opposite Party :- Sri Mayuresh Srivastava Learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 21, Sultanpur Counsel for Applicant :- Vindeshwri Pandey Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J. 1. Sri Vindeshwri Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. By means of the instant application filed under Section 12 of Contempt of the Court Act, the applicant has sought punishment of the Presiding Officer of the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Room No. 21, Sultanpur for alleged wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 28.02.2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Application u/s 482 No. 1651 of 2025. 3. The aforesaid order provided that the Trial Court shall pass appropriate orders after hearing the parties, as directed by the Sessions Judge, Sultanpur vide order dated 20.01.2025 in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2024 expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, provided the petitioner co-operates in the hearing and submits the list of the witnesses as directed by the Trial Court. 4. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 28.02.2025 was filed by the petitioner before the Trial Court on 05.03.2025. Although the matter was earlier fixed for 10.04.2025, the Trial Court fixed an early date on 20.03.2025. On 24.03.2025, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for both the parties and opportunity was given for filing objections. The Presiding Officer was on leave on 29.03.2025. On 16.04.2025, the opposite party filed an application for adjournment. The matter was heard on 01.05.2025 and the opportunity of defence was closed. No order passed after 01.05.2025 has been annexed with the petition. 5. The bare perusal of the order dated 28.02.2025 makes it clear that this Court had not issued any positive direction for disposal of the proceedings within three months. The direction was merely for deciding the matter expeditiously, preferably, within three months, subject to co-operation of the petitioner. In the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and others: (2024) 6 SCC 267 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "47.3. Constitutional courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other courts. Constitutional courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the courts concerned where the cases are pending;." 6. A perusal of the order indicates that both parties do not appear to be co-operating in expeditious disposal of proceedings by the trial. 7. In these circumstances, it does not appear that the Presiding Officer of the Court has committed any wilful disobedience of the order passed by this High Court. There is not merit in the instant contempt application. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Order Date :- 19.6.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench