State of U.P v. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and others, u/s

1. Heard Mr. Pradyumna Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant-Ram Chandra Kushwawha, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the Trial Court/Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad to hear and decide the Session Trial No.578 of 2016 (Case Crime No.158 of 2016), State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and others, u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station: Meja, District: Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad expeditiously within a stipulated time as soon as possible. And/or may pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice, otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 22.05.2016, a prompt FIR dated 22.05.2016 was lodged by first informant-Ram Chandra Kushwaha-applicant herein and was registered as Case Crime No. 0158 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad. In the aforesaid FIR, one Bablu Kushwaha was nominated as named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis material collected by him, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused Bablu Kushwaha (opposite party-3) as well as the complicity of not named accused Pawan Kushwaha (opposite party-2) is fully established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. , whereby aforementioned persons were charge sheeted.

6. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2016 (State Vs. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Others), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad came to be registered and the same is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-8, Allahabad.

7. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial. Accordingly, the concerned Sessions Judge, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed charges against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 16.01.2017 in respect of accused-opposite party-2 and 08.05.2018 in respect of accused-opposite party-3.

8. Charge sheeted accused i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3 denied the charges so framed by Court below against them. They pleaded innocence and demanded trial. Consequently, the trial procedure commenced.

9. Prosecution, in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused, has adduced 6 prosecution witnesses up to this stage.

10. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., as many as 24 prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein. The trial of the accused-opposite parties 2 and 3 is of the year, 2016. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 9 years has rolled by, only 6 prosecution witnesses have deposed before Court below up to this stage. He, therefore, submits that the trial of accused-opposite parties 2 and 3 is proceeding at a snail's pace. In view of above, there is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that interest of justice shall be served, in case, a positive direction is issued by this Court to Court below to proceed with aforementioned trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, exemption to the accused and further conclude the trial within a time period fixed by this Court.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. Referring to the observations made by Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the learned A.G.A. submits that no direction for time bound disposal of criminal trial can now be issued by this Court. However, the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself carved out an exception that in case, exceptional circumstance exits, the Constitutional Court can direct for time bound disposal of a criminal case. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of this application, the learned A.G.A. submits that since no exceptional circumstance has emerged on record, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in present application.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending.

13. Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally with a direction to Court below to decide Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2016 (State Vs. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Others), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, stay/exemption to accused except in exceptional circumstance and to take such measure as are available under the Code (i.e. Cr.P.C.) to secure the presence of the witnesses and further ensure strict compliance of the mandate of law provided in Section 309 Cr.P.C./Section 346 BNSS. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 HSM

1. Heard Mr. Pradyumna Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1.

2. Perused the record.

3. Applicant-Ram Chandra Kushwawha, who is the first informant, has approached this Court by means of present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, Most Respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and direct the Trial Court/Additional Session Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad to hear and decide the Session Trial No.578 of 2016 (Case Crime No.158 of 2016), State of U.P. Vs. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and others, u/s 302 I.P.C., Police Station: Meja, District: Allahabad pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.8, Allahabad expeditiously within a stipulated time as soon as possible. And/or may pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper to secure the ends of justice, otherwise the applicant shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury."

4. Record shows that in respect of an incident, which is alleged to have occurred on 22.05.2016, a prompt FIR dated 22.05.2016 was lodged by first informant-Ram Chandra Kushwaha-applicant herein and was registered as Case Crime No. 0158 of 2016, under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad. In the aforesaid FIR, one Bablu Kushwaha was nominated as named accused.

5. After aforementioned FIR was lodged, Investigating Officer proceeded with statutory investigation of concerned case crime number in terms of Chaper-XII Cr.P.C. On the basis material collected by him, during course of investigation, Investigating Officer came to the conclusion that complicity of named accused Bablu Kushwaha (opposite party-3) as well as the complicity of not named accused Pawan Kushwaha (opposite party-2) is fully established in the crime in question. Accordingly, Investigating Officer submitted the charge sheet/police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. , whereby aforementioned persons were charge sheeted.

6. Upon submission of aforementioned police report/charge sheet, cognizance was taken upon same by the Jurisdictional Magistrate in exercise of jurisdiction in terms of Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C. However, as offence complained of is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, therefore, the concerned Magistrate, committed the case to the Court of Sessions. Resultantly, Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2016 (State Vs. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Others), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad came to be registered and the same is now said to be pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.-8, Allahabad.

7. The concerned Sessions Judge proceeded with trial. Accordingly, the concerned Sessions Judge, in the light of the provisions contained in Section 228 Cr.P.C., framed charges against charge sheeted accused, vide framing of charge order dated 16.01.2017 in respect of accused-opposite party-2 and 08.05.2018 in respect of accused-opposite party-3.

8. Charge sheeted accused i.e. opposite parties 2 and 3 denied the charges so framed by Court below against them. They pleaded innocence and demanded trial. Consequently, the trial procedure commenced.

9. Prosecution, in discharge of it's burden to bring home the charges so framed against charge sheeted accused, has adduced 6 prosecution witnesses up to this stage.

10. Learned counsel for applicant submits that in the charge sheet/police report submitted by the Investigating Officer in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C., as many as 24 prosecution witnesses have been nominated therein. The trial of the accused-opposite parties 2 and 3 is of the year, 2016. However, in spite of the fact that a period of more than 9 years has rolled by, only 6 prosecution witnesses have deposed before Court below up to this stage. He, therefore, submits that the trial of accused-opposite parties 2 and 3 is proceeding at a snail's pace. In view of above, there is no likelihood of the trial getting concluded in near future. On the above premise, it is thus urged by the learned counsel for applicant that interest of justice shall be served, in case, a positive direction is issued by this Court to Court below to proceed with aforementioned trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, exemption to the accused and further conclude the trial within a time period fixed by this Court.

11. Per contra, the learned A.G.A. for State-opposite party-1 has opposed the present application. Referring to the observations made by Apex Court in paragraphs 41 and 42 of the Five Judges Bench judgment in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2024 SCC Online SC 207, the learned A.G.A. submits that no direction for time bound disposal of criminal trial can now be issued by this Court. However, the Apex Court in aforementioned judgment has itself carved out an exception that in case, exceptional circumstance exits, the Constitutional Court can direct for time bound disposal of a criminal case. Referring to the affidavit filed in support of this application, the learned A.G.A. submits that since no exceptional circumstance has emerged on record, therefore, no indulgence be granted by this Court in present application.

12. Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that no useful purpose shall be served in keeping this application pending.

13. Accordingly, this application is disposed of finally with a direction to Court below to decide Sessions Trial No. 578 of 2016 (State Vs. Pawan Kumar Kushwaha and Others), under Section 302 IPC, Police Station-Meja, District-Allahabad expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, stay/exemption to accused except in exceptional circumstance and to take such measure as are available under the Code (i.e. Cr.P.C.) to secure the presence of the witnesses and further ensure strict compliance of the mandate of law provided in Section 309 Cr.P.C./Section 346 BNSS. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 HSM