Allahabad High Court
AMIT KUMAR PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court held that without exceptional circumstances, it cannot compel a trial court to expedite disposal of a criminal case within a stipulated period.
Summary
The applicant, Amit Kumar Pandey, an informant in State Vs. Gulab Giri (Session Trial No. 109 of 2026), sought a direction from the High Court to compel the trial court to conclude the case within the stipulated period, citing non‑appearance of accused despite issuance of bailable and non‑bailable warrants. The trial court had taken cognizance on 20‑Jan‑2026 and issued warrants, but the accused remained absent. The opposite parties argued that the delay was due to a large backlog of cases and that the matter was already under appeal, which prevented their appearance. The High Court examined the record and found no evidence of reluctance or laxity on the part of the trial court and noted the absence of any exceptional circumstances warranting a special direction. Consequently, the Court held that it could not order an expedited disposal of the case. The application under Section 529 of the CrPC was therefore dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can direct a trial court to dispose of a criminal case within a stipulated period in the absence of exceptional circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 318(4), 336(3), 338, 340(2), 351(2), 352, 61
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — s. 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha, 3(2)(va)
Subjects
- expedited trial
- bailable warrant
- non-bailable warrant
- court backlog
- criminal procedure
- Section 529 CrPC
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4876 of 2026
Amit Kumar Pandey
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sarvendra Dwivedi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Aishwarya Goswami, G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE SUBHASH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned counsel for opposite parties
as well as learned A.G.A. and perused material on record.
The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to direct
the learned trial court to conclude the case in Session Trial No. 109 of 2026
(State Vs. Gulab Giri and others) arising out of Case Crime No. 44 of 2025,
under Sections 318(4), 338, 336(3), 340(2), 61, 352, 351(2) BNS and
Section 3(1)Da, 3(1)Dha and 3(2)(va) S.C./S.T. Act, Police Station
Audhogik Kshetra, District Prayagraj.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, applicant
is informant in the aforesaid case in which after investigation charge sheet
was filed and cognizance was also taken by the learned trial court against the
accused persons on 20.1.2026, thereafter process was issued against the
accused persons but they are not appearing before the learned trial court. On
30.05.2026 N.B.W. was also issued against Dhirendra and Sanno even
though they are not appearing, therefore request to direct the learned trial
court to proceed with the case expeditiously and decide it within the
stipulated period of time after ensuring the attendance of accused persons.
Learned counsel for opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. contended that
against the order passed by learned trial court for summoning, has been
challenged before this Court in criminal appeal but on account of huge
number of cases pending before this Court, it could not be entertained till
now that is the reason they are not appearing before the learned trial court.
NA529 No. 4876 of 2026
2
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by
learned counsel for parties as well as learned A.G.A. and perusal of record
and order sheet, it appears that the learned trial court has issued B.W. against
some of the accused persons and N.B.W. against Dhirendra and Sanno who
were served B.W., it shows that there is no any reluctance or laxity on the
part of the learned trial court in proceeding with the case. In view of large
number of cases pending before the learned trial court, a particular case
cannot be directed to be decided within stipulated period of time unless there
are exceptional circumstances those are lacking in the present case. Since,
cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned trial court on 20.01.2026
on the basis of charge sheet filed by Investigating Officer, therefore, at this
stage it does not require any such direction for expeditious disposal within
stipulated period of time.
Accordingly, the present application is disposed of, finally.
(Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.)
September 23, 2026
Anurag Singh
Digitally signed by :-
ANURAG SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…