Allahabad High Court
NEETI VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed on merits/Rejected
- Bench
- SUBHASH VIDYARTHI
Holding
The application is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
Neeti Verma filed a criminal transfer application (No. 22 of 2023) before the Allahabad High Court. No appearance was made on behalf of the applicant, and the counsel for the opposite party was the only one present. The court observed that both the applicant and her counsel had lost interest in pursuing the matter. Relying on the maxims that the law aids the vigilant and that litigation should end in the public interest, the court decided not to consider the merits. The application was dismissed for non‑prosecution and any interim order previously granted was vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether the transfer application should be dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the applicant's failure to appear and pursue the case?
Subjects
- transfer application
- criminal procedure
- non‑prosecution
- dismissal
- vigilance
- interim order vacated
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
TRANSFER APPLICATION (CRIMINAL) No. - 22 of 2023
Neeti Verma
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home And Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Krishan Kanhaya Pal, Krishan Kanhaya Pal,
Pooja Pal, Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi, Shekhar
Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Prabhat Shukla, Raj Narain, Raj Narain
Pandey
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Case called out in revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the
applicant to press this application. However, learned counsel representing side
opposite is present in the Court.
2. It appears that the applicant and the counsel engaged by the applicant both have lost
the interest in the case and are not interested in pursuing the application.
3. It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:-
(i) Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (The law assists only those who are
vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights); and
(ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (In the interest of the society as a whole, the
litigation must come to an end).
The above said two maxims are sister provisions, which would highlight and spotlight
that the party seeking remedy before the Court should be vigilant, otherwise, the law
would not come to their help and there should be end to litigation.
4. Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels that the application should not be
disposed of on merits and should be dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, it is
dismissed for non-prosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
October 29, 2025
Vinay/-
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench
Checking your session…