Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P.), which was finally disposed of vide order dated
Case Details
Acts & Sections
Cited in this judgment
1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Lal, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Santosh Yadav, 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 that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant and issue direction to the Court concerned to decide expeditiously the Session Trial No. 758 of 2016, State Vs. Shailendra Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 429 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Fast Track Court-II, Allahabad otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
4. Record shows that applicant earlier approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26978 of 2017 (Santosh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2017. For ready reference, the order dated 25.08.2017 is reproduced hereinunder:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The only prayer made by the applicant is that Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Allahabad be directed to decide the S.T. No. 758 of 2016, case crime no. 429 of 2016 within a stipulated period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed off with a direction to the aforementioned court concerned to decide the aforesaid sessions trial expeditiously, in case the proceedings have not already been completed, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of."
5. Thereafter, applicant again approached this Court by means of subsequent application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 35218 of 2018 ( Santosh Yadav vs. State of U.P.). The said application was disposed of finally vide order dated 04.10.2018. For ready reference, the order dated 04.10.2018 is reproduced hereinunder:- "Heard Mr. Dashrath Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed for a direction upon the Court below to decide the Sessions Trial No. 758 of 2016 (State Vs. Shailendra Yadav and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that previously the applicant had approached this Court for a similar direction by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of finally vide order dated 25.8.2017. For ready reference, the order dated 25.8.2017 is reproduced:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The only prayer made by the applicant is that Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Allahabad be directed to decide the S.T. No. 758 of 2016, case crime no. 429 of 2016 within a stipulated period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed off with a direction to the aforementioned court concerned to decide the aforesaid sessions trial expeditiously, in case the proceedings have not already been completed, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order
1. Heard Mr. Dashrath Lal, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
2. Perused the record.
3. Applicant-Santosh Yadav, 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 that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow the present Criminal Misc. Application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. of the applicant and issue direction to the Court concerned to decide expeditiously the Session Trial No. 758 of 2016, State Vs. Shailendra Yadav and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 429 of 2016, under Section 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 I.P.C. and Section 7 of Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Naini, District Allahabad pending in the Court of Fast Track Court-II, Allahabad otherwise the applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in any manner whatsoever. And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case."
4. Record shows that applicant earlier approached this Court by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 26978 of 2017 (Santosh Yadav Vs. State of U.P.), which was finally disposed of vide order dated 25.08.2017. For ready reference, the order dated 25.08.2017 is reproduced hereinunder:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The only prayer made by the applicant is that Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Allahabad be directed to decide the S.T. No. 758 of 2016, case crime no. 429 of 2016 within a stipulated period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed off with a direction to the aforementioned court concerned to decide the aforesaid sessions trial expeditiously, in case the proceedings have not already been completed, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with Section 309 Cr.P.C. and in view of principle as has been laid down in the recent judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab; 2015 (3) SCC 220 and Hussain and Another v. Union of India; 2017 (5) SCC 702, if there is no legal impediment. With the aforesaid observations, the application is disposed of."
5. Thereafter, applicant again approached this Court by means of subsequent application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. i.e. Application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. No. 35218 of 2018 ( Santosh Yadav vs. State of U.P.). The said application was disposed of finally vide order dated 04.10.2018. For ready reference, the order dated 04.10.2018 is reproduced hereinunder:- "Heard Mr. Dashrath Lal, learned counsel for the applicant and the learned A.G.A. for the State. This application under Section 482 Cr.P.c. has been filed for a direction upon the Court below to decide the Sessions Trial No. 758 of 2016 (State Vs. Shailendra Yadav and Others) under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 34 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S. Naini, District Allahabad, pending in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Room No.1, Allahabad. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that previously the applicant had approached this Court for a similar direction by means of an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. which was disposed of finally vide order dated 25.8.2017. For ready reference, the order dated 25.8.2017 is reproduced:- "Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State. The only prayer made by the applicant is that Additional Sessions Judge, Room No. 1, Allahabad be directed to decide the S.T. No. 758 of 2016, case crime no. 429 of 2016 within a stipulated period. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this application is finally disposed off with a direction to the aforementioned court concerned to decide the aforesaid sessions trial expeditiously, in case the proceedings have not already been completed, if possible, within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order