Amit Kumar Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And Another

Facts

The applicant, Amit Kumar Gupta, is engaged in the business of exporting garments and needs to travel abroad to meet clients and buyers. He filed an application before the District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, seeking permission to travel abroad. This application was registered as Criminal Misc. Case No. 324 of 2021, under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act, and is currently pending. The applicant filed the present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking a direction for the expeditious disposal of his pending application before the court below, preferably within one month. The applicant contends that the non-disposal of his application is hindering his ability to travel abroad, thereby causing losses to his export business.

Held

The Court held that given the facts and circumstances, and the submission made by the learned counsel for the applicant regarding the potential financial losses to his export business due to the non-disposal of his application, it was deemed appropriate to dispose of the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The Court directed the trial court (District & Sessions Judge, Meerut) to decide the pending application (Crl. Misc. Case No. 324 of 2021) within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The ratio decidendi is that High Courts can direct expeditious disposal of applications pending before subordinate courts, especially when there is a demonstrable impact on a party's business or livelihood, provided the application itself is a legitimate one. The operative direction is to decide the pending application within one month.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Court should direct the expeditious disposal of the applicant's application seeking permission to travel abroad, which is pending before the District & Sessions Judge, Meerut, under Section 132(1) of the CGST Act? The applicant argued that the delay in disposing of his application for permission to travel abroad is causing significant financial losses to his export business, as he is unable to meet his international clients. The applicant relied on the urgency of his business needs to justify the request for speedy disposal. The opposite party, the State of U.P. and Another, did not record any specific arguments against the applicant's plea for expeditious disposal in the judgment.