Vindhyachal Yadav And 8 Others v. State of U.P & Anr.

Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.A. for the State.

The instant petition has been preferred for challenging the order dated 10.07.2023 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No.6, Gorakhpur in Criminal Revision No.235 of 2022 (Shyam Sunder Vs. State of U.P. and Others), under sections 365, 120B, 467, 468, 384 I.P.C. at P.S. Barhalganj, District- Gorakhpur arising out of Complaint Case No.64 of 2000 (Shyam Sunder Vs. State of U.P. and Others) as well as to stay/set-aside the entire proceedings of abovementioned complaint case. section 156(3)

Factual matrix of the matter derives that initially an application was preferred by Cr.P.C. informant/respondent no.2, wherein the learned court concerned directed to register an F.I.R., which has been registered as Case Crime No.10 of 1999, under sections 365, 120B, 467, 468, 385 I.P.C., wherein after conduction of detailed inquiry, final report has been submitted by the concerned Investigating Officer.

Being aggrieved with the final report, complainant/respondent no.2 preferred a protest petition, which has been treated as Complaint Case No.64 of 2000 and wherein the learned court concerned directed to produce the evidence under section 244 Cr.P.C. but the respondent no.2 failed to do so and the same has been dismissed and further after a long gap he has filed a recall application, which was also dismissed vide order dated 11.10.2018, being aggrieved with the order dated 11.10.2018, informant/respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No.3446 of 2019 (new numbered as 64 of 2021), which was accepted and the matter was remitted back to learned court concerned to pass fresh order on the application preferred at the behest of complainant/respondent no.2 vide order dated 22.04.2022.

The application preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 was again rejected by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gorakhpur vide order dated 29.09.2022 on the ground that the proceeding is still at the stage of evidence and after 18 to 19 years, a fresh list of witnesses cannot be accepted, being aggrieved with the order dated 29.09.2022, respondent no.2 preferred Criminal Revision No.235 of 2022 (Shyam Sunder Vs. State of U.P. and Others), through which order dated 29.09.2022 has been set-aside and the matter is again remitted back to learned court concerned to decide afresh vide order dated 10.07.2023, which impugned the present petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that proceedings of the instant matter is pending for the last 24-25 years at the stage of evidence and the same is deliberately lingering on account of the informant/respondent no.2, whereas the learned court concerned has also failed to exercise the power vested in them and as such the impugned order is liable to be set-aside.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and supported the revisional order, which impugned the present petition.

After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsel for the parties and by bare perusal of record, order dated 10.07.2023 which impugned the present petition is hereby modified only to the extent that the direction passed by learned revisional court shall be complied with in shape of re-deciding the application preferred at the behest of respondent no.2 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.