SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 23769

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
SMT. RAMLALI URF MAYAWATI AND 6 ORS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER – Respondent
A482/41888/2018



Guidelines for speedy disposal of cases, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hussain and another v. Union of India, are to be followed.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 482 - QUASHING OF PROCEEDINGS - SUMMONING ORDER - APPLICANT NO.2 ALREADY RELEASED ON BAIL - APPLICANT NOS.1 AND 3 TO 7 DIRECTED TO SURRENDER AND APPLY FOR BAIL - BAIL APPLICATIONS TO BE DECIDED WITHIN 7 DAYS - DISCHARGE APPLICATIONS TO BE DECIDED WITHIN 6 WEEKS - GUIDELINES FOR SPEEDY DISPOSAL OF CASES TO BE FOLLOWED

Fact of the Case:

The applicants filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking to quash the proceedings of a case against them for offences under Sections 498A, 304B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. The applicant no.2 had already been released on bail.

Finding of the Court:

The court directed the applicants nos.1 and 3 to 7 to surrender and apply for bail, which was to be decided within 7 days. The court also directed that if the applicants were released on bail, they could file discharge applications, which were to be decided within 6 weeks. The court further directed that the guidelines for speedy disposal of cases, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hussain and another v. Union of India, were to be followed.

Issues: Whether the proceedings against the applicants should be quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceedings against the applicants could not be quashed as the applicant no.2 had already been released on bail and the applicants nos.1 and 3 to 7 had not yet surrendered and applied for bail. The court also held that the guidelines for speedy disposal of cases, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Hussain and another v. Union of India, were to be followed.

Final Decision: The court disposed of the application with the directions that the applicants nos.1 and 3 to 7 should surrender and apply for bail, which was to be decided within 7 days. The court also directed that if the applicants were released on bail, they could file discharge applications, which were to be decided within 6 weeks.

Court No. - 67

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 41888 of 2018

Applicant :- Smt. Ramlali Urf Mayawati And 6 Ors

Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another

Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Singh,Ranjeet Singh,Sanjeev Kumar

Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.

Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned counsel for the complainant as

well as learned A.G.A. and perused the record.

By means of the present 482 Cr.P.C. application, the prayer sought by the

applicants is to quash the proceeding of Case No.1368 of 2010 (Rooplal Vs.

Smt. Ramlali and ors.) arising out of case crime no.709 of 2009 under sections

498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police station-Sirsaganj, District-

Firozabad and summoning order dated 19.12.2017 in the court of Chief Judicial

Magistrate, Firozabad.

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the applicant no.2 has already

been bailed out.

Under the circumstances, the applicant no.2, if so advised, may invoke proper

remedy moving discharge application under section 227/239 Cr.P.C. and the

same shall be heard and decided by the learned court concerned within a period

of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by a

well reasoned order strictly in accordance with law.

So far as applicant nos.1 and 3 to 7 are concerned, considering the entire facts

and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced, this Court is of the

opinion that since learned counsel for the applicants has already given up that he

does not want to press the case on merit, in the fitness of circumstances, this 482

Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of with the direction that the court below

would extend the benefit of interim bail (if the court concerned deems it fit

according to the merit of each case) as contemplated in the law laid down by this

Court in the case of Amrawati and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004

(57) ALR 290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court reported in

2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. after

the applicants surrender within 30 days before the court and if their bail

applications are filed, the same shall be adjudicated and decided by the courts

below with speaking and reasoned order, strictly in accordance with law, in the

light of the judgment given by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hussain and

another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant

extract of which reads as under :-

"….......Judicial service as well as legal service are not like any other services. They are

missions for serving the society. The mission is not achieved if the litigant who is waiting in

the queue does not get his turn for a long time"....... "Decision of cases of under-trials in

custody is one of the priority areas. There are obstructions at every level in enforcement of

right of speedy trial; vested interests or unscrupulous elements try to delay the

proceedings"....... "In spite of all odds, determined efforts are required at every level for

success of the mission"..... "The Presiding Officer of a court cannot rest in a state of

helplessness. This is the constitutional responsibility of the State to provide necessary

infrastructure and of the High Courts to monitor the functioning of subordinate courts to

ensure timely disposal of cases."

To satiate speedy disposal of the cases, the courts below are issued following

directions in accordance with the observations made in the case of Hussain and

another (Supra):

(i)Bail applications be disposed of normally within one week :

(ii) Magisterial trials, where accused are in custody, be normally concluded within six months

and sessions trials where accused are in custody be normally concluded within two years.

(iii).......................................................................................................;

(iv).................................................................................

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top