Allahabad High Court
Hori Lal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 6 May, 2025
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:73508 Court No. - 70 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 10225 of 2025 Applicant :- Hori Lal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Dharmendra Kumar Nirankari,Ranjeet Sonker Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ranjeet Sonker, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant- Hori Lal, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 528 BNSS with the following prayer:-
"It is, therefore most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present application and to direct the Additional District & Session Judge Room No. 22, Allahabad to decide the of S.T. no. 1161/2024 (State Vs. Rinku Kumar), arising in under section 363,302, 201 I.P.C. P.S. Ghoorpur, District Allahabad arising out of case crime no. 34/2024 dispute about murder case, within six months period of time as may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."
4. It transpires from record that an FIR dated 19.01.2024 was lodged by first infromant i.e. applicant and was registered as Case Crime No. 34 of 2024 under Section 363, 302, 201 I.P.C. P.S. Ghoorpur, District Allahabad. In the aforesaid FIR, an unknown person has been nominated as solitary named accused.
5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chapter-XII Cr.P.C. He, accordingly examined the first informant/applicant and other witnesses in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. On the basis of above and other material collected by him, during course of investigation, he came to the conclusion that complicity of not named accused Rinku Singh is fully established in the crime in question. Accordingly, he submitted the charge sheet/police report on 16.04.2024 in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
6. After submission of aforesaid charge sheet/police report cognizance was taken upon same by the jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. vide Cognizance Taking Order dated 30.04.2024. Since offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, accordingly, concerned Magistrate committed the case to Court of Sessions vide committal order dated 03.05.2024. Resultantly, Sessions Trial no. 1161 of 2024 (State Vs. Rinku Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No. 34 of 2024 under section 363,302, 201 I.P.C. P.S. Ghoorpur, District Allahabad came to be registered.
7. Concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. In line with Section 228 Cr.P.C., he framed charges against charge sheeted accused vide framing of charge order dated 03.08.2024. The accused denied the charges so framed and demanded trial. Resultantly the trial procedure commenced. Upto this stage, two prosecution witnesses i.e. PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed before Court below. Since, in the opinion of the first informant i.e. applicant there is undue delay in the conclusion of trial, therefore, he has approached this Court by means of present Application under Section 528 BNSS for expeditious disposal of the trial preferably within the time period fixed by this Court.
8. At the very outset, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of present application. Learned A.G.A. submits that applicant has rushed to this Court even though, a period of one year has not yet expired from the date of framing of charge order passed by Court below i.e. 03.08.2024. Referring to the Five Judges Bench judgment of Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the leaned A.G.A. submits that no direction for time bound disposal of aforementioned criminal case can be issued by this Court. It is further submitted by the learned A.G.A. this Court which is also a constitutional Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Article 226 of the Constitution of India the High Court can direct Court below to conclude proceedings of a particular criminal case within a time bound period provided the circumstances are exceptional. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of present application, the learned A.G.A. contends that no such exceptional circumstance has been pointed out warranting interference by this Court. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. thus submits that present application is liable to be dismissed by this Court.
9. When confronted with above, the learned counsel for applicant could not overcome the same.
10. 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 is not only borne out from the record but furthermore the same could not be dislodged by the learned counsel for applicants with reference to the record. In view of above, no good ground exists to entertain the present application.
11. As a result, the present application fails and is liable to be dismissed.
12. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 6.5.2025 Imtiyaz