# Sudha Agarwal @ Sudha Garg v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 8 ILRA 345
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-08-12
- **Case number:** Matters Under Article 227 No. 3880 of 2025
- **Bench:** Vinod Diwakar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudha-agarwal-sudha-garg-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53681
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

G.A., Krishna Dutt Tiwari

Issue for Consideration
Instant petition has been filed with the prayer to
direct the trial court to commence the
proceedings in Case No.7782 of 2019, arising
out of Case Crime No. 379 of 2004, under
Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 IPC, read with
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
Petitioner
further
seeks
a
direction
for
expeditious disposal of the proceedings and the
conclusion of Complaint Case No. 4934 of 2019,
which is pending before the learned Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ACJM, Moradabad.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227- Petitioner-wife constrained to invoke
supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking appropriate directions to
uphold the rule of law, secure a fair and
impartial adjudication in the pending
proceedings, and protect her from any
form of undue influence, harassment, by
the accused or other interested parties -
Petition allowed with certain directions to
the concerned court.

Held- Petitioner's matrimonial life has been
severely disrupted by protracted litigation and
continuous interference from her in-laws -
Considerable lapse of more than two decades -
It is regrettable that the trial court has failed to
commence or conduct any effective proceedings
in the matter - Prolonged and unexplained
inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a
denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion
of the rule of law and a violation of the
petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and
expeditious trial - Petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity of hearing on any occasion when
this Court granted interim stayed the arrest of
accused(s) or stayed the trial court proceedings
- The conduct of the accused(s), particularly
their repeated non-appearance despite multiple
opportunities, has resulted in an undue delay in
the progress of the trial - While certain delays
may
be
justified
under
exceptional
circumstances, the State cannot absolve itself
from the constitutional responsibility of ensuring
speedy justice to litigants - a mandate
consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and essential to the very foundation of
the rule of law. ( E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227

List of Keywords
Speedy justice to litigants; Persistent hardship
endured by the petitioner; Matrimonial life
severely disrupted by protracted litigation;
Prevent miscarriage of justice

Case Arising From
Case No.7782 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime
No. 379 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 504,
506, 323 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, Complaint Case No. 4934
of 2019, which is pending before the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ACJM,
Moradabad.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner: - Dr. Sudha Garg
Counsel for Respondent: -G.A., Krishna Dutt
Tiwari
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

## Text

8 All. Sudha Agarwal @ Sudha Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
345

7. The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is
allowed.
---------
(2025) 8 ILRA 345
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3880 of 2025

Sudha Agarwal @ Sudha Garg ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. Sudha Garg

Counsel for the Respondents:
G.A., Krishna Dutt Tiwari

Issue for Consideration
Instant petition has been filed with the prayer to
direct the trial court to commence the
proceedings in Case No.7782 of 2019, arising
out of Case Crime No. 379 of 2004, under
Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 IPC, read with
Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,
Petitioner
further
seeks
a
direction
for
expeditious disposal of the proceedings and the
conclusion of Complaint Case No. 4934 of 2019,
which is pending before the learned Additional
Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ACJM, Moradabad.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227- Petitioner-wife constrained to invoke
supervisory jurisdiction of this Hon'ble
Court under Article 227 of the Constitution
of India, seeking appropriate directions to
uphold the rule of law, secure a fair and
impartial adjudication in the pending
proceedings, and protect her from any
form of undue influence, harassment, by
the accused or other interested parties -
Petition allowed with certain directions to
the concerned court.

Held- Petitioner's matrimonial life has been
severely disrupted by protracted litigation and
continuous interference from her in-laws -
Considerable lapse of more than two decades -
It is regrettable that the trial court has failed to
commence or conduct any effective proceedings
in the matter - Prolonged and unexplained
inaction by the trial court constitutes not only a
denial of timely justice but also a serious erosion
of the rule of law and a violation of the
petitioner's fundamental right to a fair and
expeditious trial - Petitioner was not afforded an
opportunity of hearing on any occasion when
this Court granted interim stayed the arrest of
accused(s) or stayed the trial court proceedings
- The conduct of the accused(s), particularly
their repeated non-appearance despite multiple
opportunities, has resulted in an undue delay in
the progress of the trial - While certain delays
may
be
justified
under
exceptional
circumstances, the State cannot absolve itself
from the constitutional responsibility of ensuring
speedy justice to litigants - a mandate
consistently reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court and essential to the very foundation of
the rule of law. ( E-15)

Case Law Cited

List of Acts
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article 227

List of Keywords
Speedy justice to litigants; Persistent hardship
endured by the petitioner; Matrimonial life
severely disrupted by protracted litigation;
Prevent miscarriage of justice

Case Arising From
Case No.7782 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime
No. 379 of 2004, under Sections 498A, 504,
506, 323 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of the
Dowry Prohibition Act, Complaint Case No. 4934
of 2019, which is pending before the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)/ACJM,
Moradabad.

Appearances for Parties
Counsel for Petitioner: - Dr. Sudha Garg
Counsel for Respondent: -G.A., Krishna Dutt
Tiwari
346 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vinod Diwakar, J.)

1. Heard the petitioner-wife in person,
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State-respondents and perused the
material available on record.

2. The instant petition has been filed
with the prayer to direct the trial court to
commence
the
proceedings
in
Case
No.7782 of 2019, arising out of Case Crime
No. 379 of 2004, under Sections 498A,
504, 506, 323 IPC, read with Section 3/4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, registered at
P.S. Nauchandi, District Meerut, which was
subsequently transferred to Moradabad.
The petitioner further seeks a direction for
expeditious disposal of the proceedings and
the conclusion of Complaint Case No. 4934
of 2019, which is pending before the
learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/ACJM, Moradabad.

3. The brief facts of the case are as
follows:

3.1 The petitioner-wife claims to
had been residing at 388/5, Nehru Nagar,
Garh Road, Meerut, and is employed as an
Associate Professor and Head of the
Department of Zoology at Hindu College,
Moradabad. She further claims to have
pursued her education at C.C.S. University,
Meerut,
where
she
achieved
notable
academic distinctions, including an M.Sc.
(Gold Medal), M.Phil. (First Position),
CSIR
(JRF)
NET,
and
Ph.D.
The
petitioner's husband holds a BAMS degree,
an MD in Ayurveda, and was stated to be
employed as a resident doctor at Dev
Bhommi Hospital, Haridwar, before their
marriage.

3.2 The petitioner's marriage to
Respondent No. 7 was solemnized on
15.01.2003, in accordance with Hindu rites
and rituals. The petitioner gave birth of
twin children-one son and one daughter.
Soon after the marriage, the petitioner
alleges
that
she
was
subjected
to
continuous harassment, physical abuses,
and mental cruelty by her husband and
other family members, all in connection
with demands for additional dowry. Due to
her failure to meet these unlawful dowry
demands, the petitioner-wife was forcibly
thrown out from her matrimonial home on
08.08.2004, leaving behind her 7-monthold daughter and the son was retained by
the husband.

4. Having no other recourse, the
petitioner-wife
lodged
an
FIR
on
08.10.2004 which was registered as Case
Crime No. 379 of 2004, under Sections
under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 IPC,
read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, at P.S. Nauchandi, District
Meerut, against her husband and other
relatives. Aggrieved by the registration of
the
FIR,
the
accused
persons
filed
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8593 of
2004 before this Court, which was disposed
of, on the first date of listing, by an order
dated 29.10.2004. The relevant portion of
the said order is extracted hereunder:

"Having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, we finally
dispose of the writ petition by directing that
the petitioners shall not be arrested in Case
Crime No. 379 of 2004, under Section 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3/4
Dowry Prohibition Act, P.S. Nauchandi,
District Meerut till the conclusion of the
trial
provided
they
pay
interim
compensation to the victim wife Smt. Sudha
Agarwal, respondent no.3 @ Rs. 1500/- per
month
from
today.
Such
interim
compensation from today up to 31.10.2004
8 All. Sudha Agarwal @ Sudha Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
347
shall be deposited in the court of Chief
Judicial
Magistrate,
Meerut
by
7th
November 2004 and for all subsequent
months by 7th day of the following month.
The wife Smt. Sudha Agarwal shall be
entitled to withdraw the same.

The order for payment of interim
compensation is based on the analogy of
the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra
Chakraborty (AIR 1996 SC 922).

In case of failure in payment of
interim compensation, the order staying the
arrest of the petitioners shall stand vacated
automatically."

5. Subsequently, after completing the
investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet on
05.12.2004 against ten accused persons. The
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut,
took cognizance of the case and issued
summon to the accused persons. Aggrieved by
the summoning order, the accused persons
filed an Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C. No. 5010
of 2005, before this Court, wherein vide order
dated 31.05.2005, the proceedings, pending
before the learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate was stayed by this Court till the
next date of listing. The order dated 31.5.2005
had been passed on the first date of listing
without giving an opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner-wife. The relevant portion of the
order dated 31.05.2005 has been quoted
hereunder:

"It is submitted that the parties
have
entered
into
compromise
vide
annexure-2 of the affidavit.

Issue notice.

Let the compromise be sent to the
lower for necessary verification within
three weeks and call for the compliance
report thereafter.

List thereafter in the next cause
list.

Till then further proceedings in
Case No. 156 of 2005, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3⁄4 Dowry
Prohibition Act, P.S. Nauchandi District
Meerut, pending in the Court of A.C.J.M.
Meerut shall remain stayed against the
applicants only."

6. Pursuant to the order dated
31.05.2005, the petition remained unlisted,
neither having been brought forward for
hearing by the accused(s) nor sought to be
relisted at the instance of the accused(s). As
a corollary, the proceedings before the
learned trial Court stood stayed for a period
of almost five years. Subsequently, the stay
earlier granted by this Court was vacated
vide order dated 21.09.2010. The relevant
extract of the said order is reproduced
hereinbelow: :

"Passed over on the illness slip of
learned counsel for the applicant.

List this case in the next cause
list.

Interim order granted earlier is
hereby vacated.

Court concerned be informed
immediately."

7. Thereafter, the trial court issued
bailable warrants, followed by non-bailable
warrants. However, upon receiving an
application from the accused(s) for the
cancellation of the non-bailable warrants,
the court, without affording the petitioner-
348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wife an opportunity to be heard and relying
solely on the version presented by the
accused(s),
recalled
the
non-bailable
warrants by recording incorrect facts in the
order dated 25.07.2011, without recording
any reason in support thereof.

8. Furthermore, the Application u/s
482 Cr.P.C. No. 5010 of 2025 was
dismissed for want of prosecution by order
dated 04.07.2019. The relevant portion of
the
said
order
has
been
extracted
hereunder:

"Case called out in the revised
list. None has appeared to press this
application on behalf of applicants while
Sri B.S. Srivastava holding brief of Senior
Advocate Sri I.K. Chaturvedi for opposite
party no.2 is present.

Order sheet reveals that on
31.5.2005 an order was passed staying the
further proceeding which has been vacated
on 21.9.2010. Order sheet further reveals
that on illness as well as praying for time
the case was adjourned on 25.10.2010 and
19.4.2019.

In view of the above, the
application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is
dismissed for want of prosecution.

Communicate this order to the
court concerned immediately."

9. Meanwhile, the proceedings arising
out of Case Crime No. 379 of 2004 have
been
transferred
from
Meerut
to
Moradabad. And since 2019, no effective
proceedings have been undertaken by the
trial court, even the trial has not reached to
the stage of Section 230 BNSS (supply to
accused of copy of police report and other
documents), in last 21 years.

10. The petitioner-wife appeared in
person and argued that the accused(s) are
influential
persons
who
have
been
obstructing
the
fair
and
timely
administration of justice on multiple fake
and engineered grounds. The petitionerwife has been seeking justice for the last 21
years, yet the proceedings before the trial
court have not even commenced. Initially,
for a period of 15 years, the proceedings
could not take place due to the stay order
granted by this Court. Subsequently, the
trial court showed no interest in advancing
the matter. Furthermore, as per the order
dated 29.10.2004, the stay on the arrest of
the
accused(s)
was
granted
till
the
conclusion of the trial. However, the
petitioner-wife contends that the accused(s)
have shown a blatant disregard for the law.

10.1 The petitioner-wife has also
instituted a separate Complaint Case No.
4934 of 2019, which remain pending with
inordinate delay, in the proceeding before
the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior
Division)/
ACJM,
Moradabad.
The
accused(s) have consistently submitted
fictitious
applications
for
personal
exemption before the trial court to delay the
proceeding, which have been allowed by
the court without recording any reasons.
The accused (s) have also persistently
exerted pressure on the petitioner-wife to
compromise and withdraw all criminal
cases, and to agree to an unconditional
divorce.

10.2 The petitioner-wife further
submits that one of the accused(s), Shri
Ramesh Agarwal (since died), was Peshkar
of the District Judge, Moradabad, and had
misused his official position by exerting
undue influence to obstruct the fair and
impartial conduct of proceedings before the
trial court. It is pertinent to note that his
8 All. Sudha Agarwal @ Sudha Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
two sons, Shri Sachin Agarwal and Shri
Anil Agarwal, are also employed as
Peshkars in the District Court, Moradabad,
while his daughter-in-law, Smt. Babita
Agarwal, has been serving in the Consumer
Court, Moradabad. Additionally, it is
brought on record that the grandson of the
said late Shri Ramesh Agarwal, Shri
Anshul Agarwal, is a practising Advocate
at the District Court, Moradabad, and has
been representing the accused(s) as learned
counsel in the present matter. In these
circumstances, there arises a reasonable
apprehension that the accused(s) may exert
influence over the proceedings of the
Court, thereby posing a potential risk to the
integrity and impartiality of the judicial
process.

10.3 Furthermore, the accused
Sandeep
Agarwal
receives
continued
support from another maternal uncle,
accused Balesh Agarwal, who is the
proprietor of Nand Gas Agency (Hindustan
Petroleum)
in
Moradabad
and
has
previously served as the Nagar Adhyaksh
of the ruling party. Given his political and
social influence, he has been exerting
pressure on the petitioner.

10.4 The petitioner-wife moved
an application under Section 12 of the
Protection of Women from the Domestic
Violence Act, 2005, in the year 2010,
which was erroneously dismissed in 2016.
This highlights the undue delay of six years
in deciding an application filed under the
Domestic Violence Act because of the
influence of the accused(s) in the District
Court, she apprehends.

10.5 The petitioner-wife further
submits that she is facing significant
challenges in her professional life, as the
charge of officiating principal has been
entrusted to the teachers who are well
known to the accused Sandeep Agarwal
and his family, and who hold a clear bias
against the petitioner-wife. Despite her 14
years of service, the petitioner-wife was
unfairly penalized through a wrongful
demotion in seniority, with malicious intent
to hinder her prospects of becoming the
Head of the Department. However, her
seniority was subsequently restored by
orders of the Vice-Chancellor and the
Chancellor.

10.6 In furtherance of a motivated
and influenced conspiracy, the college
management proceeded to suspend and
terminate the petitioner-wife in 2019.
Although the Division Bench of this Court
quashed the entire disciplinary proceedings
and reinstated the petitioner-wife with all
consequential benefits, compliance with the
order had to be enforced through contempt
proceedings initiated against the college
management and the principal.

10.7 The matter is presently
under consideration before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, as the college management
has challenged the orders of this Court
before the Supreme Court.

10.8 Finally, given the aforesaid
circumstances,
the
petitioner-wife
contented that she has been constrained to
invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this
Hon'ble Court under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India, seeking appropriate
directions to uphold the rule of law, secure
a fair and impartial adjudication in the
pending proceedings, and protect her from
any form of undue influence, harassment,
by the accused or other interested parties.

11. After hearing the petitioner-wife in
person, this Court is persuaded by the facts
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on record, which clearly establish a
persistent
hardship
endured
by
the
petitioner-wife since the solemnization of
her
marriage.
Notwithstanding
her
exemplary academic qualifications and
distinguished
career
as
an
Assistant
Professor, officiating Principal, and Head
of Department-positions that provide her
with a respectable income and enable her to
maintain a dignified standard of living-the
petitioner's matrimonial life has been
severely disrupted by protracted litigation
and continuous interference from her inlaws. The cumulative impact of these
adversities has rendered her personal life
intolerable and unsustainable. Considering
these circumstances, the matter demands
the immediate attention and intervention of
this Court to safeguard the petitioner's
legal and constitutional rights and to ensure
the administration of justice.

11.1 The petitioner was separated
from her matrimonial home on 08.08.2004,
under forced circumstances, following
which she lodged the First Information
Report (FIR) in the same year, seeking
redressal for the grievances suffered.
Notwithstanding the considerable lapse of
more than two decades since the FIR was
registered, it is regrettable that the trial
court has failed to commence or conduct
any effective proceedings in the matter.
This prolonged and unexplained inaction
by the trial court constitutes not only a
denial of timely justice but also a serious
erosion of the rule of law and a violation of
the petitioner's fundamental right to a fair
and expeditious trial. Such judicial inertia
demands the urgent intervention of this
Hon'ble Court to safeguard the petitioner's
constitutional and legal rights, ensure the
proper administration of justice, and
prevent any further miscarriage of justice.

11.2 Upon perusal of the order
dated 31.05.2005 and other orders, as
extracted above, it is evident that the
petitioner-wife
was
not
afforded
an
opportunity of hearing on any occasion
when this Court granted interim stayed the
arrest of accused(s) or stayed the trial court
proceedings. Furthermore, despite both
petitions being listed before this Court
since 2004, no effective proceeding has
been taken place till the petition dismissed
for want of prosecution because of nonappearance of the accused(s). The record
suggests that the trial has not progressed an
inch further since filing of the charge-sheet.
The accused(s) are not appearing before the
trial Court taking shield of the order dated
29.10.2004, in which the accused(s) arrest
has been stayed till the conclusion of the
trial. As the interim order dated 29.10.2004
has been vacated by this court on
21.09.2010 with the direction to inform the
trial court forthwith about the fate of order
dated 29.10.2004. The trial court is at
liberty to proceed with the trial in
accordance with law.

11.3 The trial
court record
suggests that the accused(s) have filed
personal exemption application consistently
and failed to appear on 35 times, thereby
exacerbating the petitioner's hardship and
distress.

11.4
One
of
the
cardinal
principles of criminal jurisprudence is the
right to a free, fair, and expeditious trial.
When this right is not upheld, litigants
inevitably lose faith in the judicial process.
If the trial court continues to grant
exemptions to the witnesses without
justifiable reason, and fails to compel their
attendance, the integrity of the trial process
itself may be compromised.
8 All. Sudha Agarwal @ Sudha Garg Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351

12.
Having
considered
the
submissions advanced by the petitionerwife and upon careful perusal of the record,
this Court is of the considered view that the
conduct of the accused(s), particularly their
repeated non-appearance despite multiple
opportunities, has resulted in an undue
delay in the progress of the trial. In view of
the same, and to ensure the effective
administration
of
justice
and
timely
conclusion of the trial, this Court directs
that:

(i) The accused persons in both
the cases referred in prayer clause are
directed to appear before the learned trial
court on the next date fixed, and thereafter
on all successive dates. In the event of their
failure to appear without sufficient and
justifiable cause, the trial court shall
record detailed reasons while considering
any application for personal exemption.
Further, the court shall maintain a record
in each subsequent order indicating the
number of times such personal exemption
applications have been filed and the
grounds
mentioned
therein.
If
the
accused(s) fail to appear without valid
cause, their bail bonds shall be forfeited,
non-bailable warrants shall be issued for
their arrest, and they shall be taken into
custody and produced before the trial
court to face trial without any further
delay.

(ii) The learned trial court is
further directed to proceed with the trial on
a day-to-day basis, and/or weekly-basis by
recording reasons, without granting any
unnecessary adjournments to either party.
The trial must be concluded expeditiously,
keeping in view the prolonged pendency of
the case for the past 21 years, and the fact
that it has not yet reached even the stage of
framing of charge.

(iii) Miscellaneous application, if
any, filed by the accused(s), shall be
disposed of in a time-bound manner,
without wasting even a day's time.

(iv)
The
Joint
Director
(Prosecution), Moradabad, is directed to
ensure that there is no delay - preferably
not exceeding two days - in filing a reply
to any miscellaneous application submitted
by the accused(s). The prosecution shall
also ensure that all prosecution witnesses
are produced before the Court promptly,
with an endeavour to produce all of them in
a single session.

(v) The trial court shall ensure
that the chief examination of prosecution
witnesses is conducted on the very day of
their appearance before the court. It shall
further
ensure
that
no
unwarranted
adjournments are granted to the accused(s)
for cross-examination of the witnesses. In
the event of non-appearance of the defence
counsel, the trial court may engage a
learned counsel from the District Legal
Services Authority (DLSA) to conduct the
cross-examination. It is the duty of the trial
court to inform the accused(s) that in case
their counsel fails to appear on the given
date, the legal assistance from panel
counsel of the DLSA shall be fortwith
provided to the accused (s).

(vi) The Senior Superintendent of
Police (S.S.P.), Moradabad, is hereby
directed to ensure prompt and effective
service of summons and execution of
bailable or non-bailable warrants issued by
the learned trial court against any or all
accused persons. The S.S.P. shall ensure
that such processes are executed without
delay or procedural lapse, and a compliance
report to this effect shall be filed before the
trial court by an officer not below the rank
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Circle Officer (C.O.), who shall be
personally accountable for overseeing the
service and execution of the process.

(vii) The S.S.P., Moradabad, shall
also ensure that the accused(s) do not
attempt to extend any undue influence,
threat, or coercion upon the complainant or
prosecution witnesses in furtherance of any
ulterior motive.

(viii) In view of the fact that one
of the co-accused served as Peshkar to the
learned District Judge, Moradabad for a
considerable period, and his two sons are
presently working as Peshkars in the same
District Court, with another son of one of
the accused being a practicing advocate in
the District Court, Moradabad, the trial
shall be conducted in-camera to ensure an
unbiased and fair proceeding.

13. In view of the aforesaid directions,
the instant writ petition stands allowed.

14. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate a copy of this
order to the learned trial court concerned
through
the
learned
District
Judge,
Moradabad, and also to the Senior
Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, and
the
Joint
Director
(Prosecution),
Moradabad, for strict and immediate
compliance.

15. It is clarified that the directions
issued herein are based on the peculiar and
pressing facts and circumstances discussed
above and shall not be treated as a
precedent in other pending matters. This
court is fully conscious of the workload
faced by the trial courts. However, the fact
remains that the FIR in this case was
lodged in the year 2004 and the chargesheet was submitted within the same year.
Yet, to date, the trial has not progressed
even to the stage of framing of charges.
While certain delays may be justified under
exceptional circumstances, the State cannot
absolve itself from the constitutional
responsibility of ensuring speedy justice to
litigants
-
a
mandate
consistently
reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
and essential to the very foundation of the
rule of law.
----------
(2025) 8 ILRA 352
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.08.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

Matters Under Article 227 No. 8236 of 2025

Abujar Lari ...Petitioner
Versus
Rampati & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashwani Kumar Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:

Issue for Consideration
Whether the provisions of Order XLI Rule 27 will
not apply in an appeal filed under Order XLIII
Rule 1(r) of C.P.C.

Head Notes
The Constitution of India, 1950-Article
227 - The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-
Order XLI Rule 27, XLIII Rule 1(r) - No
impediment in accepting the documents at
appellate stage - Rules of procedure to
advance justice - Party may not be in a
position to produce the relevant material -
Refusal to entertain such a material
produced at the stage of an appeal would
certainly result in denial of justice-
Purpose of an Appeal is to see that the
party entitled to the relief should be
granted the relief .