Allahabad High Court

ASHA JYOTSNAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS

Decided: 8 September 2026
Bench: AJAY KUMAR II

Holding

A direction for time‑bound disposal can be issued only in extraordinary circumstances, which the applicant failed to establish, so the application is refused.

Summary

The applicant, Asha Jyotsna, filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a High Court direction that the Judicial Magistrate Court No. 1, Mainpuri, dispose of a pending criminal case (State vs Vimal Kumar) within a fixed time. The applicant argued that the trial was unduly delayed, while the State’s A.G.A. raised no objection provided the lower court was not overloaded. The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association v. State of U.P.) which hold that time‑bound schedules may be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. Finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstance, the Court refused the relief but allowed the applicant to move a fresh application before the trial court for expeditious disposal, with a limited timeline for consideration. The judgment also reiterated the duty of police officers to execute court processes under the Police Act, 1861.

Issues considered

Whether a High Court can issue a direction under Section 529 BNSS for time‑bound disposal of a criminal trial pending before a Judicial Magistrate.
Whether the applicant has shown any extraordinary circumstance justifying such a direction.

Legislation cited

BNSS — s. 529
Dowry Prohibition Act — s. 3, 4
Indian Penal Code — s. 323, 498-A, 506
Police Act, 1861 — s. 23, 29

Subjects

time‑bound disposal
Section 529 BNSS
exceptional circumstances
criminal trial pendency
judicial magistrate
Police Act compliance

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4150 of 2026

Asha Jyotsna
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Manish Dubey, Saumitra Dwivedi,
Shubham Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Saumitra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant, 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
applicant with a prayer to direct the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 1,
Mainpuri to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 1396 of 2026 (State vs.
Vimal Kumar and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 35/2022, under
Sections 498-A, 323, 506 IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Mainpuri, pending in the Court of Judicial
Magistrate, Court No. 1, Mainpuri within a reasonable time as fixed by this
Court.

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 trial proceedings of the
aforesaid case is still pending and has not been decided till date. Therefore,
he requested that a direction to the 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
extraordinary.
NA529 No. 4150 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 applicant has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstance 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 learned 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, the applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such
facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of her 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 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. This Court would like to draw the attention of the Court concerned that
whenever NBW or BW or any other process is issued against either accused
or witness, then such Court is duty bound to make all endeavour for ensuring
execution of such NBW or BW or other process. It is the bounden duty of
every police officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants
lawfully issued to him by virtue of Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861. If
such police officer violates his duty or neglect any lawful order passed by
such Court, then he becomes guilty under Section 29 of the Police Act.
Therefore, the Courts are not powerless to ensure compliance of it's order/ or
execution of lawful process issued by it.

11. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before
NA529 No. 4150 of 2026
3

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/direction, the present application is
disposed of.

September 9, 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…