Allahabad High Court
DEEP NARAYANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR II
Holding
The High Court held that without demonstrating exceptional circumstances, it cannot issue a direction for time‑bound disposal of the pending criminal case.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 529 of the Criminal Procedure Code seeking a High Court direction that the trial court expedite the disposal of a criminal case (State vs. Ram Bachan, case No. 5085 of 2025) pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur, under Sections 323 and 504 IPC. The applicant argued that the matter, originating in 2005, remained undecided and required a time‑bound schedule. The State opposed the direction only if the trial court was already overloaded. The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs State of Maharashtra, 2023 and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs State of U.P., 2024) which hold that time‑bound disposal directions are permissible only in extraordinary circumstances. Finding no such exceptional circumstance, the Court refused the application but allowed the applicant to move a fresh application before the trial court seeking expeditious disposal, with specific timelines for consideration. The application was therefore disposed of without a direct time‑bound order.
Issues considered
- Can a High Court, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, direct a lower criminal court to dispose of a pending case within a stipulated time under Section 529 CrPC?
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 529
- Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 504
Subjects
- time‑bound disposal
- exceptional circumstances
- Section 529 CrPC
- expeditious trial
- criminal pendency
- High Court direction
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3969 of 2026
Deep Narayan
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwani Kumar Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for State and
perused material on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to
direct the learned trial court to decide/expedite the Case No. 5085 of 2025
(State vs. Ram Bachan and others) arising out of NCR No. 32 of 2005,
under Sections 323, 504 IPC, P.S. Chauri Chaura, District Gorakhpur,
pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur within stipulated
period.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant that matter belongs to
the year 2005, which is still pending and has not been decided till now.
Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial court be issued to
decide the aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time.
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 extra ordinary.
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 4
NA529 No. 3969 of 2026
2
2, 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 applicant has failed to make out any
exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of
present application is hereby refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by counsel for the applicant, the
interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies
before the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above
mentioned case. Therefore, applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all
such fact, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of his case within
two weeks from today, and in case such an application is moved, the trial
Court shall decide the same within four weeks from the date of filing of
such application. If trial Court comes to 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. 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.
11. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid
direction.
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
September 8, 2026
Dhirendra/
Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…