Allahabad High Court

SEEMA AND 2 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: AJAY KUMAR II

Holding

The High Court held that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, it cannot issue a direction for time‑bound disposal of the pending case under Section 529 BNSS.

Summary

The applicants filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a direction to the Additional Principal Judge of Family Court‑1, Jaunpur, to decide a pending criminal case (Case No. 991 of 2022) under Section 128 of the Cr.P.C. within a stipulated time‑frame. The State opposed the prayer, raising no objection only if the lower court was not overloaded. The Court examined precedents – Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P. – which hold that constitutional courts should not ordinarily fix time‑bound schedules unless extraordinary circumstances exist. The Court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstance. Consequently, the application for a time‑bound direction was refused, but the applicants were permitted to approach the lower court with a fresh application for expeditious disposal, which the lower court must decide within two weeks if filed. The judgment was disposed of on 8 September 2026.

Issues considered

Can a High Court, under Section 529 BNSS, direct a lower court to dispose of a pending case within a stipulated period?
Do the facts of the present case constitute ‘exceptional circumstances’ justifying a time‑bound schedule?
Is it appropriate for a constitutional court to intervene in the case management of a lower court absent extraordinary circumstances?

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 529
Cr.P.C. — s. 128

Subjects

time‑bound disposal
exceptional circumstances
Section 529 BNSS
Section 128 Cr.P.C.
court pendency
family court
recovery warrant
judicial administration

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3791 of 2026

Seema And 2 Others
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Km. Sakshi Patel
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard Km. Sakshi Patel, learned counsel for the applicants, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to direct Additional Principal Judge, Family Court-1
Jaunpur to decide the Case No. 991 of 2022 (Seema and others vs.
Ravishankar) under Section 128 Cr.P.C., which is pending before Additional
Principal Judge, Family Court-1, Jaunpur, within stipulated period fixed by
this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the proceedings before the
Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time-bound manner. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that proceedings of the
aforesaid case under Section 128 Cr.P.C. filed before the learned Court
below, is still pending and has not been decided till date. She requested that
a direction to the learned Court below be issued to decide the aforesaid case
within a stipulated period.

4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not
already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.

5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed
that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency,
the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound
schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is
extraordinary.
NA529 No. 3791 of 2026
2

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 42,
which is reproduced as under:-

"Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of
cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases
pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the
grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore,
the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the
concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be
passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."

7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional
circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of
such a case can be issued not otherwise.

8. Learned counsel for the applicants has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstance to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case,
at this stage. Accordingly, the relief sought by way of present application is
hereby refused.

9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the
applicants, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the
applicants apply before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of
above mentioned case. Therefore, the applicants are given liberty to move
appropriate application(s) before Court concerned for bringing out all such
facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of their case, within two
weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved, the Court
concerned shall decide the same within two weeks from the date of filing of
such application. If, Court concerned comes to the conclusion that the case
for expeditious disposal is made out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide
the same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period.

10. From the perusal of the record, it reveals that the aforesaid case was filed
on 30.05.2022 and by the order dated 22.12.2022, service upon the opposite
party no. 2 is found to be sufficient and thereafter the learned Court
concerned issued a recovery warrant against the opposite party no. 2.
Considering the fact that the applicant no. 1 is the wife of the opposite party
no. 2 the applicant nos. 2 and 3 are the minor son and daughter of opposite
party no.2, it is expected from the learned Court concerned to take all
NA529 No. 3791 of 2026
3

necessary steps for realization of recovery warrant and if necessary, the issue
of non realization of recovery warrant be also taken up in the monthly
meeting, which is regularly conducted by Principal Judge, Family Court with
District Magistrate and SP/SSP of concerned district.

1. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before
the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall
pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the
proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application is
disposed of.

September 8, 2026
Monika
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…