Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

GULNAZ BANOversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court held that without demonstrating exceptional circumstances, it cannot order a time‑bound disposal of the pending case.

Summary

The applicant, Gulnaz Bano, filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a court order directing the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Kanpur to decide a pending complaint under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act filed in 2018. The applicant argued that the case had been pending for an undue period and requested a time‑bound schedule for its disposal. The State opposed the direction, noting no overload of cases. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedents (Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P.), held that time‑bound directions are permissible only in extraordinary circumstances, which were not demonstrated. Consequently, the application for a time‑bound order was refused, but the Court allowed the applicant to move a fresh application before the trial court seeking expeditious disposal, with a six‑week deadline for the trial court to decide if such an order is warranted.

Issues considered

  • Whether a High Court can issue a direction under Section 529 BNSS for time‑bound disposal of a pending domestic violence case.
  • Whether the applicant has shown any exceptional or extraordinary circumstance justifying such a direction.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • time‑bound disposal
  • Section 529 BNSS
  • Domestic Violence Act
  • pendency of cases
  • exceptional circumstances
  • expeditious disposal

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4163 of 2026

Gulnaz Bano
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
                                                                  .....Opposite
                                                                        Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)              :   Arvind Kumar, Pravin Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)         :   G.A.

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

1. Heard Mr. Arvind Kumar, 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 Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division)-01, Kanpur Nagar to decide the Complaint Case No. 11001 of
2018 (Gulnaz Bano vs. Mohd. Kamil and others), under Section 12
Domestic Violence Act, Polic Station Colonelganj, District Kanpur Nagar,
pending before him, within stipulated period 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 in this case, a complaint
under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act was filed before the trial Court
on 24.02.2018, which complaint is still pending and has not been decided till
date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to learned trial Court be issued
to decide the aforesaid application 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.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
                                                                                                   NA529 No. 4163 of 2026
                                                                        2

                                    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 pendecny 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, the 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 above
                                    mentioned case. Therefore, the applicant is given liberty to move 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 six 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. 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. With the aforesaid observations/directions, 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

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.