Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 52236 (ALL)

RAMAN SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

NA529/1181/2025 · 2025-05-08

Nalin Kumar Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75604 Court No. - 80 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 1181 of 2025 Applicant :- Raman Srivastava Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Kuldeep Kumar Gupta 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. 1430 of 2024 under Section 340 CrPC, P.S. Kidwai Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the Court of Additional Principal Judge, Family Court No.1, Kanpur Nagar, expeditiously within stipulated period. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that the aforesaid case is pending since 2024. False affidavit on behalf of the opposite party no. 2 was filed in Case No. 342 of 2018. In this connection an application u/s 340 CrPC dated 16.7.2024 was moved by the present applicant / husband. The said application is pending and the Court concerned is not taking proper interest in disposal of the same. It is also submitted that the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 are adopting delaying tactics in disposal of the said application and only dates are being fixed in the matter. 4. Learned AGA opposed the prayer. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The applicant has made a prayer for expeditious disposal of the aforementioned application 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......." 7. Learned counsel for the applicant has not shown any exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time bound disposal of the said application at this stage. However, in view of the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of with a direction to the court concerned to make all endeavours for expeditious disposal of the aforesaid application keeping in view the work load in the said Court, if there is no legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournment will be sought/granted. 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 :- 9.5.2025 safi Digitally signed by :- MAHBOOB SAFI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad