Raj Pachauri vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Held
The Court noted that the order from the co-ordinate bench did not stay Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2017, but rather stipulated that it should not be concluded prior to GST No. 01 of 2019. Therefore, the trial court was directed to record all evidence in Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2017 completely. The instant petition was disposed of with a direction to the trial court to endeavor to conclude all evidence in the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order. The Court did not explicitly decide on the issue of whether the trial should be concluded within a stipulated time frame, but rather directed the completion of evidence recording.
Facts
The applicant, Raj Pachauri, filed an application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to expedite the conclusion of Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2017. This trial arises from Case Crime No. 94 of 2017, involving charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Criminal Law Amendment Act. The applicant claims to be an eye-witness who sustained a gun-shot injury, leading to an FIR against Shivam Gurjar and others under Section 307 IPC. The opposite parties objected to the prayer, citing a previous order from a co-ordinate bench that directed Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2017 to proceed but not conclude prior to another case, GST No. 01 of 2019, under the U.P. Gangsters Act.
Key Issues
1. Whether the Court should direct the conclusion of Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2017 within a stipulated time frame, considering the pendency of another case (GST No. 01 of 2019) and a prior co-ordinate bench order. Petitioner's Argument: The applicant, an eye-witness and victim, seeks expeditious conclusion of the trial. The application is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to ensure timely justice. Opposite Party's Argument: The opposite parties relied on a judgment from a co-ordinate bench which directed that Sessions Trial No. 164 of 2017 should proceed but not be concluded prior to GST No. 01 of 2019. This suggests a potential impediment to immediate conclusion.
Sections Cited
Section 482
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Court No. - 87 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 11441 of 2022 Applicant :- Raj Pachauri Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Avdhesh Narayan Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Ajay Sengar Hon'ble Om Prakash Tripathi,J. 307, 504, 506 I.P.C. and 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, P.S.-Madhogarh, District-Jalaun, pending in the Court of Special Judge (SC/ST Act) Jalaun, within a stipulated time frame.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is eye-witness of this case and has been injured by gun-shot injury. As a result whereof, an FIR under Section 307 I.P.C. has been lodged against Shivam Gurjar and others.
Learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 6 objected the prayer and placed relia
The judgment continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full GST judgments a month (one account works on both bharattax.net and this site). Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
Reproduced from the public record of the Allahabad High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.