Allahabad High Court

KAMLESH SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided: 7 September 2026
Bench: AJAY KUMAR II

Holding

The High Court refused to issue a time‑bound direction, holding that no exceptional circumstances existed to justify such an order.

Summary

The applicant, Kamlesh Singh, filed an application under Section 529 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking a High Court direction that the trial court expedite Criminal Miscellaneous Case No. 1130 of 2025, which involves offences under Sections 323, 504 and 342 IPC. The applicant argued that two applications filed on 8 May 2025 and 28 August 2025 remain pending and requested a time‑bound schedule for disposal. The State did not object, subject to the trial court not being overloaded. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P.) which hold that time‑bound directions are permissible only in extraordinary circumstances. Finding no such exceptional circumstance—particularly because the applicant’s interest lay in registering a criminal miscellaneous case against a respondent before the pending criminal revision was resolved—the Court refused the relief. It directed the applicant to cooperate for early disposal of the revision and to approach the trial court if needed, and disposed of the application.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court may, under Section 529, direct a lower court to dispose of a criminal miscellaneous case within a stipulated time in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 529
Indian Penal Code — s. 193, 323, 342, 504

Subjects

time‑bound disposal
Section 529
criminal miscellaneous case
exceptional circumstances
judicial pendency
criminal revision
IPC offences

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 3980 of 2026

Kamlesh Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hari Prakash Tiwari
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 Criminal Misc. Case
No. 1130 of 2025 (Kamlesh Singh vs. State of U.P.) under Sections 323,
504, 342 IPC, P.S. Ahraula, District Azamgarh pending before Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Azamgarh 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 in this case,
applications were filed before the learned trial court on 08.05.2025 and
28.08.2025 which are still pending and have not been decided till now.
Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial court be issued to
decide the aforesaid Criminal Misc. 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
NA529 No. 3980 of 2026
2

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. A perusal of record reveals that respondent nos. 2 and 3 were
summoned by summoning order dated 19.11.2024. Thereafter a criminal
revision against aforesaid summoning order was preferred on 27.3.2025.
In the proposed criminal revision, an application dated 8.5.2025 was filed
which is allegedly pending adjudication. By the aforesaid application
dated 8.5.2025 applicant/ complainant requested Court concerned to
register a criminal misc. case against the revisionist Jagdamba and to
punish him under Section 229 BNS (Section 193 IPC). However, later on
a Criminal Misc. Application No. 1130 of 2025 was filed before Sessions
Judge, Azamgarh to pass an order on application dated 8.5.2025. A
perusal of this application dated 28.8.2025 reveals that aforesaid proposed
criminal revision was pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge-
I, Azamgarh and application dated 8.5.2025 was also filed in the said
Court. However, a perusal of application dated 8.5.2025 reveals that same
was filed in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh.
Surprisingly, learned Sessions Judge has been requested to pass an order
on the application dated 8.5.2025 which is allegedly pending in the Court
of Ist Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh as per application dated
28.8.2025. However, a perusal of certified copy of order-sheet of
Criminal Misc. Case No. 1130 of 2025 reveals that the aforesaid criminal
misc. case is pending in the Court of Ist Additional Sessions Judge,
Azamgarh, but it is not clear that whether proposed criminal revision has
been formerly registered as criminal revision or not. It appears that
applicant is not interesting in disposal of criminal revision and he is rather
more interested in getting criminal misc. case registered against
respondent no. 2 even without final disposal of aforesaid proposed
criminal revision and that's why he has not annexed the order-sheet of
concerned proposed criminal revision. Therefore, learned counsel for the
applicant has failed to make out any exceptional circumstances to issue
direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of criminal misc. case, at
this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is
NA529 No. 3980 of 2026
3

hereby refused.
9. However, in case the applicant co-operates in early disposal of
proposed criminal revision pending before Court concerned then he is at
liberty to move an application before Court concerned, for early disposal
of Criminal Misc. Case 1130 of 2025 and in case such an application is
moved before Court concerned, the same shall be decided strictly in
accordance with law at an appropriate stage, specifically in the light that
the applicant is seeking registration of criminal misc. case for punishing
respondent no. 2 under Section 229 BNS (193 IPC).
10. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment
before the court concerned in disposal of aforesaid criminal misc. 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.
September 8, 2026
Dhirendra/
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…