Supreme Court: In a special leave to appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by the Allahabad High Court, the division bench of Dipankar Datta and Sandeep Mehta, JJ. while refraining from commenting further on the issue of the reserved judgment pending for 14 months, requested the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with the law as soon as possible. The Court emphasized that the petition should preferably be decided within three months from the date of hearing, ensuring that all parties are heard. It also directed that, should any party fail to cooperate in the process, the High Court should proceed in accordance with the law, highlighting the importance of timely resolution of the matter.
The Court noted that the Notice sought to be served on respondent 2 was returned with the postal remark “receiver went somewhere and will return only after 5-6 days, hence notice could not be served”.
According to the petitioner, a civil dispute was being treated as a criminal offence, and proceedings were initiated against him based on the complaint of the respondent 2. To challenge these proceedings, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section of the , seeking to quash the case. On 28-03-2023, the High Court reserved its judgment but did not pass any interim order in the matter. After a delay of 14 months, on 27-05-2024, the High Court de-reserved the judgment and directed that the petition be listed before an appropriate Bench for further consideration.
The petitioner expressed a grievance that, in the absence of any order of stay by the High Court, the proceedings against him have continued unabated. As a result, the case has progressed to the stage where charges have been framed, effectively rendering the petition before the High Court infructuous.
The Court remarked that it was unclear why the Judge of the High Court, despite reserving judgment 14 months ago, had not delivered the judgment or disposed of the petition.
The Court, while refraining from commenting further on the issue of the reserved judgment pending for 14 months, requested the roster bench of the High Court to dispose of the petition in accordance with the law as soon as possible. The Court emphasized that the petition should preferably be decided within three months from the date of hearing, ensuring that all parties are heard. It also directed that, should any party fail to cooperate in the process, the High Court should proceed in accordance with the law, highlighting the importance of timely resolution of the matter.
Further, the Court stayed the proceedings before the Trial Court until the matter was considered by the Allahabad High Court. The Court also granted the petitioner the liberty to seek an extension of this stay order until the disposal of the petition on its merits.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s).11919/2024 Appellants : Ramdular Singh Respondents : State of U.P. | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, AOR, Ms. Shivangi Singh, Adv., Mr. Suraj Prakash Singh, Adv., Mr. Amit Sangwan, Adv., Mr. Ashu Bhindwar, Adv., Ms. Sneha Chandna, Adv. For Respondent(s): Mr. Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sr. Adv., Mr. Garvesh Kabra, AOR, Mr. Amit Singh, Adv., Mr. Avnish Deshpande, Adv., Mrs. Sujata Upadhyay, Adv. |
CORAM :
Dipankar Datta, J.
Sandeep Mehta, J.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
The post appeared first on .