# Sudha Shukla v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 1632
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-14
- **Case number:** Application U/S 529 BNSS No. 285 of 2025
- **Bench:** Nalin Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudha-shukla-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53316
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 483 & 145-
(The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section 529--- The High
Court
is
empowered
to
exercise
its
superintendence over the Court of Judicial
Magistrates subordinate to it to ensure the
expeditious and proper disposal of the
cases by such Magistrate but when an order
is passed by an Executive Magistrate or any
direction is required to be issued for
expeditious and proper disposal of a case
which is pending before the Executive
Magistrate, the High Court can't exercise its
superintendence
over
the
courts
of
Executive Magistrates--- The High Court
under Sec. 529 BNSS(Section 483 Cr.P.C.) is
not required to make any superintendence
over the working of a Executive Magistrate
and no direction under Section 483 Cr.P.C.
(Section 529 of BNSS) can be issued to the
Executive Magistrates where a case under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. is pending before it as
prescribed in Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section
529 of BNSS).

Application rejected. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

## Text

1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.6)
8.
Amount already
paid
as
compensation
Rs.1,00,000/-

Total amount
of
compensation
payable to the
respondents
(Sr.No.7 - Sr.
No.8)
Rs.24,78,100/-
- Rs. 1,00,000/-
=
Rs.23,78,000/-

21. In view thereof, present petition
is
dismissed
with
direction
to
the
petitioners/corporation to pay the total
amount of compensation of Rs.23,78,000/-
alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per
annum from the date of claim up to the
actual payment/realization.

22. A further cost of Rs.50,000/- is
imposed upon the petitioners/corporation
for denying the poor person of the
legitimate compensation.

23.
The
petitioners/corporation
shall deposit the aforesaid amount awarded
alongwith cost within a period of three
months from today before the Permanent
Lok Adalat which shall be paid to the
claimants by the Permanent Lok Adalat in
accordance with law.

24. Let a copy of this order be sent
to the Chairman of the petitioners/
corporation to ensure that this kind of
frivolous litigation is not filed in the future.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1632
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NALIN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
Application U/S 529 BNSS No. 285 of 2025

Sudha Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Brij Bhushan Prasad Srivastava

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A.

Criminal Law-The Code of Criminal
Procedure,1973-Sections 483 & 145-
(The
Bharatiya
Nagarik
Suraksha
Sanhita,2023-Section 529--- The High
Court
is
empowered
to
exercise
its
superintendence over the Court of Judicial
Magistrates subordinate to it to ensure the
expeditious and proper disposal of the
cases by such Magistrate but when an order
is passed by an Executive Magistrate or any
direction is required to be issued for
expeditious and proper disposal of a case
which is pending before the Executive
Magistrate, the High Court can't exercise its
superintendence
over
the
courts
of
Executive Magistrates--- The High Court
under Sec. 529 BNSS(Section 483 Cr.P.C.) is
not required to make any superintendence
over the working of a Executive Magistrate
and no direction under Section 483 Cr.P.C.
(Section 529 of BNSS) can be issued to the
Executive Magistrates where a case under
Section 145 Cr.P.C. is pending before it as
prescribed in Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section
529 of BNSS).

Application rejected. (E-15)

List of the cases referred-:

1.
Dutch
Opthalmic
Research
Centre
International B.VS Vs Ultramad Pvt. Ltd. & ors.
1997 SCC Online Raj 941

2. Sarjoo & anr. Vs Babadin & anr.1975 CRLJ
1562 (Allahabad)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Nalin Kumar
Srivastava, J.)
5 All. Sudha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1633

1. The present application has been
moved under Section 529 BNSS seeking
direction to the court of Additional S.D.M.,
Deoria to decide the Case No. 36 of
20008/2009, under Section 145 Cr.P.C.,
Police Station- Gauri Bazar, District-
Deoria
pending
in
the
said
Court
expeditiously within stipulated period of
time.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for the
State.

3. The factual matrix of the present
matter is that a property dispute arose
between the applicant and O.P. No. 2 & 3
wherein notice under Section 145(1) was
ordered to be issued by the court of SDM,
Deoria vide order dated 01/12/2005. The
matter was contended by both the sides and
after evidence the court heard the matter
finally. However, some adverse orders
were passed against O.P. No. 3 in the
meantime and matter was brought to the
Court of District & Sessions Judge, Deoria
and proceedings before the SDM court
were stayed in 2021. However, the record
of the case was sent back to the court of
SDM, Deoria on 12/12/2024. The matter
was dealt with by the Court of Additional
SDM, Deoria but despite the case being
critically old the said court has kept the
matter pending and it is lingering on
unnecessarily.

4. It is submitted by the learned
counsel for the applicant that the said case
is very old but since the court concerned is
avoiding the disposal of the case. The said
casual approach of the Court of Additional
SDM, Deoria compelled the applicant to
take shelter of the High Court praying for a
direction to the Court of Additional Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Deoria
for
expeditious disposal of the case no. 36 of
20008/2009 aforesaid under Section 145
Cr.P.C. (Section 164 BNSS).

5. Learned AGA opposed the
prayer.

6.
I
have
considered
the
submissions and perused the record.

7. Instead of proceeding with the
instant matter on its merits this Court has
taken notice of the fact that the application
has been moved under Section 529 BNSS
(Section 483 Cr.P.C.) hence, it would be
proper at this stage to have a glance upon
the provisions of Section 529 BNSS to find
out the entertainability of the present
application
before
this
Court.
The
provisions of Section 529 BNSS, which are
corresponding provisions to Sec. 483 of
Criminal
Procedure
Code,
1973
are
extracted as herein below:

 "Sec.529. Duty of High Court to
exercise continuous superintendence over
Courts -Every High Court shall so exercise
its superintendence over the Courts of
Session and Courts of Judicial Magistrates
subordinate to it as to ensure that there is
an expeditious and proper disposal of cases
by the Judges and Magistrates."

8. Section 483 of Cr.P.C., on the
other hand provides that-

"Sec.483. Duty of High Court to
exercise
continuous
superintendence
over Courts of Judicial Magistrates. -
Every High Court shall so exercise its
superintendence
over
the
Courts
of
Judicial Magistrates subordinate to it as to
ensure that there is an expeditious and
proper
disposal
of
cases
by
such
Magistrates."
1634 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
9. The language of the provisions
contained in Section 529 BNSS (sec.483
Cr.P.C.) is very clear to ascertain the
jurisdiction of this Court to entertain the
instant application because it provides that
the
High
Court
shall
exercise
its
superintendence over the Courts of Judicial
Magistrates
and
Court
of
Sessions
subordinate to it. Admittedly, the case of
applicant for expeditious disposal of which
the present application has been moved is
pending before the Court of Additional Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Deoria who is an
'Executive Magistrate' and does not fall
within
the
category
of
'Judicial
Magistrates'.

10.
Learned
counsel
for
the
applicant very humbly submitted that since
the SDM is doing judicial function he may
be treated as Judicial Magistrate and this
Court may exercise its superintendence
over the Courts of SDM as well.

11. The aforesaid plea leads this
Court to find out the legal position as to
whether the Court of SDM may be termed
as a Court of Judicial Magistrate.

12. Sarjoo and Anr. Vs. Babadin
and Anr 1975 CRLJ 1562 (Allahabad) is
an authority over the present controversy.
The relevant portion of the said judgement
is quoted as hereunder:

"The argument based on Section
483 is, however, wholly misconceived. That
section says that every High Court shall so
exercise its superintendence over the
Courts of Judicial Magistrates subordinate
to it as to ensure that there is an
expeditious and proper disposal of cases by
such Magistrate. There is no question of
expeditious disposal of any pending matter,
as the case already stands decided. With
regard to the exercise of superintendence
for
the
proper
disposal
of
cases,
proceeding on the assumption that the
supervisory power is both judicial and
administrative, it is apparent that it can be
exercised only over Judicial Magistrate
and not Executive Magistrates. Under
Section
6
of
the
Code,
Executive
Magistrates constitute a class of criminal
Courts different from the class of criminal
Courts manned by the Judicial Magistrates.
Sections 11 to 15 deal with Judicial
Magistrates, while Executive Magistrates
have been dealt with by Section 20 to 23.
Proceedings under Section 145 lie within
the jurisdiction of Executive Magistrates
and not judicial Magistrates. The impugned
order
was
passed
by
an
Executive
Magistrate and there is thus no supervisory
power to correct a mistake committed by
such a Magistrate."

13.
The
term
'Executive
Magistrate' has been defined under Section
20 of Cr.P.C. wherein it has been provided
that the state government is empowered to
appoint as many persons as it thinks fit to
be Executive Magistrates and one of them
is appointed to be the District Magistrate
and to assist the District Magistrate there
are Additional District Magistrates and
further the State Government is empowered
to place an Executive Magistrate in charge
of a Sub-Division and such Magistrates are
called Sub-Divisional Magistrate and in
some circumstances the State Government
may confer the powers of a Executive
Magistrates on a Commissioner of Police in
a Metropolitan area. The provisions of Sec.
14 of BNSS are analogous to that of
contained in Sec. 20 of Cr.P.C.

14. A plain reading of Section 20
Cr.P.C. leaves no iota of doubt that the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate who is an
5 All. Sudha Shukla Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1635
Executive Magistrate and further it has
been provided under Section 23 of
Cr.P.C.(Section 17 of BNSS) that all the
Executive Magistrates, other than the
Additional District Magistrate, shall be
subordinate to the District Magistrate, and
every Executive Magistrate (other than the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate)
exercising
powers in a sub division shall also be
subordinate
to
the
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, subject, however to the general
control of the District Magistrate. The
District
Magistrate
is
empowered
to
distribute
the
business
amongst
the
Executive Magistrates subordinate to it.
The
aforesaid
superintendence
further
clarifies that it is the District Magistrate
who is supreme in a district so far as the
subordination
of
other
Executive
Magistrate is concerned. Now what Section
529 of BNSS emphasises is that the High
Court shall have a power of continuous
superintendence over the Courts of Session
and
Courts
of
Judicial
Magistrates
subordinate to it. Since undoubtedly the
Sub-Divisional Magistrate does not fall
within the category of Judicial Magistrate,
it is not a duty of the High Court to
exercise superintendence over the Courts of
Sub-Divisional Magistrate.

15. In Dutch Opthalmic Research
Centre International B.V. Vs. Ultramad
Pvt. Ltd. and Ors 1997 SCC Online Raj
941
the
Rajasthan
High
Court
has
discussed the issue by clarifying and
defining the justice delivery system and the
relevant part covering the present issue is
found in para 7 of the judgement which
says that:

 "Besides, the High Court and the
courts constituted under any law, other
than the Cr. P.C., Section 6 classifies the
criminal courts into four categories viz. (i)
the
court
of
Sessions
(ii)
Judicial
Magistrate of the First Class and the
Metropolitan Magistrates (iii) Judicial
Magistrates of the Second Class and (iv)
Executive Magistrate. In so far as the High
Court is concerned it is not the creature of
the Cr. P.C. It is the creature of the
Constitution having been conferred the
power of superintendence over all courts
and tribunals throughout the territories in
relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.
(Articles. 214, 215 and 227) of the
Constitution
of
India).
In
the
administration of criminal justice this
power of superintendence of the High
Court over the courts created by and under
the Cr. P.C. is clearly reflected in
provisions like 397, 398, 482 and 483 Cr.
P.C. That being the position of the High
Court in the hierarchy of courts in State
Judiciary it may be noted that the doctrine
of subordination of the courts seems to be
governing the procedural administration of
the courts in the administration of criminal
justice. Every Metropolitan Magistrate,
subject to the general control of the
Sessions Judge, is subordinate to the Chief
Metropolitan
and
Chief
Metropolitan
Magistrate is subordinate to the Sessions
Judge (Sec, 19). Similarly, every Judicial
Magistrate, subject to the general control
of the Sessions Judge, is subordinate to the
Chief Judicial Magistrate' and every Chief
Judicial Magistrate/Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrate is subordinate" to the Sessions
Judge (Sec. 15). The Assistant Sessions
Judge is subordinate to the Sessions Judge
(Sec.
10).
Likewise
every
Executive
Magistrate (other than the Sub-Divisional
Magistrate) exercising powers in a subdivision shall be subordinate to the SubDivisional Magistrate and every Executive
Magistrate,
including
Sub-Divisional
Magistrate but excluding the Addl. Distt.
Magistrate, is subordinate to the Distt.
1636 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate. It may be noted that in the
scheme of subordination carved out in
Chapter II of the Cr. P.C. Executive
Magistracy has not been made subordinate
to the Sessions Judge. It is obviously for the
reason
that
Chapter
II
speaks
of
administrative control and subordination of
the hierarchy of courts classified under
Sec. 6 thereof. Chapter XXIX, XXX and
XXXI relating to appeals, references and
"revisions, transfer of criminal cases
respectively and some other provisions in
the
Cr.
P.C.
deal
with
judicial
subordination of the criminal courts.."

16. The issue can be summarized
like this that since the High Court is
empowered to exercise its superintendence
over the Court of Judicial Magistrates
subordinate to it to ensure the expeditious
and proper disposal of the cases by such
Magistrate but when an order is passed by
an Executive Magistrate or any direction is
required to be issued for expeditious and
proper disposal of a case which is pending
before the Executive Magistrate, the High
Court can't exercise its superintendence
over the courts of Executive Magistrates.

17. Further more, Section 6 of
Criminal Procedure(Section 6 of BNSS as
well) Code defines the Classes of Criminal
Courts in the following manner:

"Classes of Criminal Courts -

Besides the High Courts and the
Courts constituted under any law, other
than this Code, there shall be, in every
State, the following classes of Criminal
Courts, namely:-

(i) Courts of Session;

(ii) Judicial Magistrates of the
first class and, in any metropolitan area,
Metropolitan Magistrates;

(iii) Judicial Magistrates of the
second class; and

(iv) Executive Magistrates."

18.
The
aforesaid
definition
clearly provides a distinction between the
Judicial
Magistrates
and
Executive
Magistrates and since the provisions of
Section 483 Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS)
have been made applicable to Judicial
Magistrates consequently they are not
applicable to the orders passed by an
Executive Magistrate, hence relying upon
the aforesaid provisions and case laws, it
can be safely concluded that the High
Court under Sec. 529 BNSS (Section 483
Cr.P.C.) is not required to make any
superintendence over the working of a
Executive Magistrate and no direction
under Section 483 Cr.P.C. (Section 529 of
BNSS) can be issued to the Executive
Magistrates where a case under Section
145 Cr.P.C. is pending before it like the
present one as prescribed in Section 483
Cr.P.C.(Section 529 of BNSS).

19. Hence, the present application
is not entertainable before this Court, and is
liable to be rejected and is accordingly,
rejected.
---------
(2025) 5 ILRA 1636
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.

Application U/S 483 No. 49 of 2025
And
Application U/S 483 No. 116 of 2025

Abdul Raqib @ Pehtul ...Applicant
Versus
State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party