Allahabad High Court
ANURAG PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 14 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court held that it will not direct the magistrate to decide the proceedings and dismissed the petition as an abuse of process.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a direction to the City Magistrate of Gorakhpur to decide a criminal case (Case No.17471 of 2024) concerning alleged encroachment under Section 133 of the Criminal Procedure Code and Section 152 of the B.N.S.S. Act. The magistrate had issued a preliminary order for the opposite parties to show cause, but no reply was filed and the proceedings remained pending for evidence. The petitioner had not produced his own evidence and approached the High Court for expeditious disposal. The Court observed that the petitioner had not fulfilled his evidentiary obligations, rendering the petition an abuse of process. Consequently, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Can the High Court, under Article 226, direct a magistrate to decide pending criminal proceedings when the petitioner has not produced evidence?
- Is the writ petition an abuse of the process of law?
- Should the Court exercise its discretionary jurisdiction in the absence of compliance with evidentiary requirements?
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. Act — s. 152
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 133
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ petition
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Section 133
- B.N.S.S. Act
- Section 152
- preliminary order
- abuse of process
- evidence
- magistrate
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 9521 of 2026
Anurag Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 14 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Janardan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 53
HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.
The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has
been filed for the following relief (s):-
"i. To issue order or direction the court of Learned City Magistrate, District
Gorakhpur to decide the Case No.17471 of 2024, Computerize Case
No.D202405310017471, under Section 152 B.N.S.S. Act, (Anurag Pandey and others
Vs. Jahur Ali and others), within the time specified by this Hon'ble court, So justice
may be done"
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proceedings were initiated for
unauthorized encroachment of a public way on the complaint of the
petitioner under Section 133 Cr.P.C. (152 B.N.S.S.), in which a preliminary
order was passed by the City Magistrate, District Gorakhpur, on 12.08.2024,
directing the opposite parties to show cause why the illegal encroachment
should not be removed and to submit their reply. However, neither have the
opposite parties submitted their reply nor has the concerned Magistrate
decided the proceedings. It is, therefore, prayed that a direction be issued to
the concerned Magistrate to decide the proceedings expeditiously.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
It is apparent that on the complaint of the petitioner, proceedings under
Section 133 Cr.P.C. (152 B.N.S.S.) were initiated against the opposite
parties, and a preliminary order was issued on 12.08.2024 directing the
opposite parties to show cause why the alleged encroachment should not be
removed and to furnish their reply. As per the annexed certified copy of the
CRLP No. 9521 of 2026
2
order sheet, it is evident that the opposite parties have not appeared before
the concerned Magistrate, and the proceedings are pending for recording
evidence of the parties.
It is further evident that although the petitioner has not adduced his
evidence, he has approached this Court seeking a direction for expeditious
disposal of the proceedings without completing his evidentiary obligations.
Since the petitioner himself is not ready to fulfill his obligations by
producing evidence, the concerned Magistrate cannot be directed to decide
the proceedings expeditiously.
It is apparent that the instant petition has been filed in abuse of the process
of law. In view of the above facts, this Court is not inclined to exercise its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Sandeep Jain,J.)
May 6, 2026
Mayank
Digitally signed by :-
MAYANK KUMAR SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…