1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Parvinder Singh vs State Of Up And Another

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|08 April, 2019


Court No. - 67
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12407 of 2019 Applicant :- Parvinder Singh Opposite Party :- State Of Up And Another Counsel for Applicant :- S. Rashid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant 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 applicant is to quash the order dated 17.10.2018 and entire proceeding of criminal misc. case no.174 of 2018 titled as Smt. Ranju Devi Vs. Parvinder Singh arising out of case crime no.149 of 2018, Police Station-Khutar, District- Shahjahanpur pending in the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shahjahanpur under Sections 452, 376, 506 IPC.
The submission made by learned counsel for the applicant is that the FIR was got registered by the victim herself against the applicant for the alleged incident dated 20.03.2018. She herself is a married woman and mother of three kids. She has lodged the FIR alleging therein that the applicant has outraged her modesty against her wish and desire. After registration of the FIR, police has recorded the statement of the husband and mother-in-law. Both of them has candidly stated that the lady is of easy virtues and, therefore, the final report was submitted.
It is submitted by learned A.G.A. that the statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. are consistently against the applicant and ignoring their statements, the police has submitted the final report. When the same was protested, impugned order dated 17.10.2018 was passed whereby learned Magistrate has quashed the final report and summoned the applicant in exercise of power under Section 190(1)(b) Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant has unable to point out any legal flaw in the summoning order.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced and in the fitness of circumstances, this 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of Hussain and another Vs. Union of India reported in (2017) 5 SCC Page-702, relevant extract of which reads as under :- with the direction that if the applicant surrenders within 30 days from today and applies for bail, his bail application 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
"….......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). "
The above timelines may be the touchstone for assessment of judicial performance in annual confidential reports.
For the period of 30 days from today, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant in the aforementioned case.
It is made clear that no time extension application would be entertained for extending the period of 30 days.
The ratio mentioned above is the last word for every judicial officers for abiding with the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the aforesaid scenario, it would be pertinent to refer the case of Brahm Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 08.07.2016 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.15609 of 2016 whereby co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while taking into account the concerns of most of the counsels with regard to the long pending bail applications at lower courts' stage has expressed their anguish and concern.
In the aforesaid backdrop, learned Sessions Judge/the concerned Trial Judge is directed to ensure that the guidelines given in the case of Hussain and another (supra) as well as in Brahm Singh and others(Supra) has to be carried out in its letter and spirit, failing which an adverse inference would be drawn against the erring officers and this Court would be compelled to take appropriate action against them, if found that there is laxity in adhering the above directions.
In the event, the bail application is not decided within seven days as contemplated above, the learned Judge will have to spell out the justifiable reasons and record the same on the order sheet of such cases.
With the aforesaid observations, the present 482 Cr.P.C. application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 8.4.2019 Sumit S
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.

Parvinder Singh vs State Of Up And Another


High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

08 April, 2019
  • Rahul Chaturvedi
  • S Rashid