Heard Shri Madan Gopal Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Arpit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State and perused the record.
The instant petition has been moved by the applicant under Section 483 Cr.P.C. with the prayer to direct the opposite party no.2 i.e. Additional Sub Divisional Magistrate-II, Gonda, District Gonda to decide the application moved under Section 133 Cr.P.C. registered as D2012083000437 titled as Fakirey and another v. Nakchhed pending in his court within a period of three months or such period as deems fit by the court.
Learned counsel for the applicant while referring to the copy of the order-sheet placed as Annexure No.4 to this application submits that the preliminary order in this case pertaining to Section 133 Cr.P.C. was passed in the year 2005 and thereafter the applicant has produced his evidence and on one occasion the case has also been proceeded ex parte against the opposite parties but despite the passage of 16 years thereafter the case is still pending for the recording of evidence of opposite parties. It is vehemently submitted that opposite party no.2 be directed to dispose of the case within a reasonable time.
Learned A.G.A. would also have no objection if any direction is issued to the trial court to expedite the trial.
Similarly the opposite party nos.3 to 5 would not be affected adversely if any direction to expedite the proceedings of the case pending before the opposite party no.2 is issued thus issuance of notice to opposite party no.3 to 5 is dispensed with.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties perusal of the order-sheet placed as Annexure No.4 to this application would reveal a very pathetic condition that preliminary order pertaining to the proceedings under Section 133 Cr.P.C. has been passed in the year 2005 and the case is still pending at the stage of recording of evidence of the opposite parties. What is more disturbing is that even on many dates no order-sheet has been written which prima facie reveals that perhaps on these dates the file of this case was even not placed before the presiding officer of the court. Had the file been placed before the presiding officer on these dates the order-sheet of any kind might have been written. Be that as it may the applicant is aggrieved on account of the fact that despite the preliminary order has been passed in the year 2005, the case has not been disposed of till now.
Having regard to the above facts and circumstances, the petition filed by the applicant is disposed of with a direction to the opposite party no.2 or to any other court where the case might have been transferred to dispose of the above mentioned case positively within a period of 90 days from the production of a certified copy of this order, in accordance with law.
It appears in the interest of justice to remind the opposite party no.2 of his duty to act proactively specially in those cases, which are pending for disposal since long. It is expected from presiding officer of every court to take the management of his court in his hands and such matters in any case should not be left on the mercy of the clerical staff. The instant case is a glaring example where the file on many dates was not placed before the presiding officer and it is a major cause of the delay, which had occurred in disposal of this case.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of finally.
Order Date :- 29.7.2021 Anupam S/-