PAWAN KUMAR MAURYA AND 6 OTHERS v. STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
NA529/1209/2025 · 2025-05-11
Nalin Kumar Srivastava
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50048 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 50048 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:79236 Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 1209 of 2025 Applicant :- Pawan Kumar Maurya And 6 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Akhilesh Kumar Gautam,Arya Suman Pandey,Rajendra Kumra Sah,Tushar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
1. This application under Section 529 BNSS has been filed with a prayer to direct the court concerned to decide the Complaint Case No.1254 of 2018 arising out of case crime no.747-A of 2004 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 336, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Line Bazar, District Jaunpur pending in the Court of Addl. Session Judge-I, Jaunpur, expeditiously within a stipulated period. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicants as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicants are the accused perons in the aforesaid case. The case is very old and only one witness has been recorded so far and all the accused persons are running unnecessarily to the trial court. It is also submitted that during the course of evidence an application u/s 319 Cr.P.C. was moved by the complainant but the same has been rejected. The matter is unnecessarily pending and no effective proceedings are going on. 4. I have considered the submissions and perused the entire record. 5. The applicant has made a prayer for expeditious disposal of the aforementioned case in a time bound manner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent judgement dated 29.2.2024 passed in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State of U.P and others, (2024)6 SCC 267 has held as under :-
"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 concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and"
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has not shown any exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time bound disposal of the present case at this stage. 7.
In the circumstances, the court concerned is directed to make all possible endeavours to dispose of the case under reference as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties, keeping in view the work load in the said Court, if there is no other legal impediment. 8. It is also made clear that the Court / Presiding Officer is not the only stake holder in the trial and disposal of a case, hence, besides the P.O. concerned, all the stake holders i.e. police and executive authorities, counsels, parties to the case, staff etc. are also made bound by this order and it will be their responsibility also to assist the Court in every manner for the expeditious disposal of this case. 9. With the above observations, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 12.5.2025 ss Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad